Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s decision not to progress an application she made to become an adoptive parent. We uphold the complaint finding several faults in the Council’s process of decision making. These caused Ms B injustice as distress as the decision reached by the Council cannot be relied on as a result. At the end of this statement we set out action the Council has agreed to take to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Ms B’. She complains about the Council’s decision in December 2018 not to progress an application she made to become an adoptive parent. Ms B considers the Council’s decision flawed because it:

• contained factual inaccuracies;
• introduced matters it had not discussed with her;
• introduced irrelevant considerations;
• sent it to her over Christmas 2018 when she could not contact the Council to challenge the content.

2. Ms B says as a result she was caused distress, increased by the inability to contact the Council straight away to discuss its’ decision. She is also concerned the Council retains information on her file which could potentially have a negative impact on her chance of adopting in the future through a different agency. Ms B also considers the Council put her to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing her application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. Before issuing a decision statement in this case I considered:

• Ms B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided, included that gathered in telephone conversations with her;
• the Council’s reply to Ms B’s complaint sent before we began our investigation;
• information provided by the Council in reply to my written enquiries;
• relevant national guidance and local policy which I set out below.
• Comments made on two draft decision statements shared with Ms B and the Council.

7. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Guidance and National Policy

8. The Council says that during the events covered by this complaint it followed statutory guidance on adoption for local authorities, published by the Government in July 2013. I consider Chapter 3 of that guidance particularly relevant to this complaint, entitled “Preparing, assessing and approving prospective adopters”. For the events covered by this complaint the Council delivered adoption services direct. It is now part of a regional network meaning it has delegated responsibility for delivering adoption services to a third party agency.
9. The guidance sets out a two stage process for prospective adoptive parents. Stage One should last no more than two months and is for the adoption agency (in this case the Council) to ascertain “through prescribed checks and references whether the prospective adopter is not suitable to adopt a child” (paragraph 3.20). It is described as a ‘pre-assessment decision’.
10. The guidance says stage one of the process will therefore involve the adoption agency carrying out criminal record checks, health checks and obtain references. The stage one process is also for prospective adopters to identify matters such as their own parenting capacity and potential training needs.
11. If an adoption agency decides not to proceed with adoption at Stage One of the process it must “provide a clear written explanation of the reasons why” (paragraph 3.43).
12. The guidance identifies Stage Two as a process lasting up to four months; for “intensive training and assessment” (paragraph 3.49). The Council should draw up an assessment plan with the prospective adopter and produce a written assessment of the adopter’s suitability. The assessment is to “analyse and consider the information they ascertain about the prospective adopter including any issues identified during the adoption preparation. The approach should be objective and inquiring with information evaluated and its accuracy and consistency checked” (paragraph 3.51). A social worker carrying out the assessment may want to arrange for a second opinion “where there are issues of significant concern” (paragraph 3.57).
13. A decision whether to proceed with a prospective adopter at Stage Two of the process will involve referral to an Adoption Panel. An agency may choose to present a brief report if recommending refusal, something described as a “serious step to take”. Where recommending refusal the guidance says “the agency should explain its concerns to the prospective adopter and offer counselling, involving other professionals as appropriate” (paragraph 3.62). The guidance notes that refusal can have “a devastating effect on the prospective adopter”. So, the social worker should provide “a full explanation of why they are not considered suitable to adopt and give them information on what action they can take if they do not agree with the determination”.
14. Decisions taken at Stage Two of the adoption process carry the right to either make further representations to the agency or to ask for a review through an independent review mechanism.
15. As well as the statutory guidance the Government publishes national minimum standards for adoption which the Council says it also follows. This includes Standard 10 on “recruiting and assessing prospective adopters”.
16. This says prospective adopters should be “treated fairly, without prejudice, openly and with respect” (paragraph 10.1). It says the adoption agency should prepare “adoptive parents in a sensitive way, which addresses and gives them skills knowledge and practical techniques to manage the issues they are likely to encounter and identifies the competencies and strengths they have or will need to develop”. This includes addressing matters such as understanding the needs of adoptive children and developing key parenting skills (paragraph 10.09).
17. The Council has its own Children and Young Person Service Safeguarding and Social Care Division Procedures Manual (still current) which includes a section on “Adoption and Permanence Services”. This says the Council follows a two stage process of assessing prospective adopters in line with the government guidance I have described. It says the Council will draw up a “prospective adopter Stage One plan”. This will set out what checks the Council will make and any training the prospective adopter agrees to attend. It says the Council will carry out a criminal record check, a health check and obtain references. An information leaflet provided to prospective adoptive parents says at this stage, the Council will “explore with the prospective adopter the preparation most appropriate for them”.
18. Council policy also says that if it decides not to proceed with an adoption at Stage One the prospective adopter “must be provided with a clear written explanation of the reasons why” (Section 5.2 paragraph 3.7).
19. As I go on to detail below, at Stage One of its process, the Council also asks prospective adopters to complete self-assessment forms. It says these are part of the “beginning of the conversation” of what adoption entails. The Council considers this consistent with government guidance saying it can decide on the “form and substance” of preparatory work it undertakes with prospective adoptive parents (paragraph 3.41).
20. Council policy describes Stage Two as involving detailed interviews to cover such matters as information about the prospective adopter’s life story. The Council will also want to explore their motivation for wanting to adopt and want to know about matters such as their employment, home conditions and so on. Interviews will also test their views towards parental responsibility, what they think is a suitable environment for a child and what support networks they have in place. The information leaflet given to prospective adopters also explains the Stage Two process in the same terms.
21. The information gathered through these interviews will inform a “prospective adopter’s report”. Council guidance about the content of such reports mirrors the government guidance I quoted above.
22. The Council policy explains these reports go to an adoption panel. If the panel receives a brief report saying a prospective adopter is unsuitable then it can either agree that recommendation or ask the Council to prepare a full report. After a panel decision refusing a prospective adopter, that person can either make representations to the agency (which may refer those back to the panel in turn) or they can ask for an independent review.
23. As part of its policy the Council also publishes a list of who can adopt which includes but also goes beyond the basic legal requirements. The Council says “childless couples wishing to adopt will usually be required to have completed any fertility tests and treatment, and to have had a period of time, usually about 6 months, since completing the tests before an application can be accepted. This is because it is important for couples to have accepted their infertility and grieved before moving on to start the adoption process” (section 5.2, paragraph 15.11).
24. In 2018, the Council also provided an ‘adoption pack’ to adopters. This reflected the wording of the policy above saying the Council considered “all infertility treatment needs to have been completed at least six months before starting the adoption process”. This is “so applicants have dealt fully with the emotional impact” of undertaking such treatment and “reconciled themselves to the fact of childlessness”. Elsewhere the Council said adopters needed time “to fully resolve the shift from the need to be pregnant to the need to parent”.
25. The Council’s current partner agency for adoptions also sends information to prospective adopters describing the procedure followed. This says Stage 1 of the procedure “lasts about two months, although it may be longer if checks and references take more time to be returned”. It refers to the statutory checks, the allocation of a social worker and two days of adopter training. It does not refer to any checks of applicants going beyond the statutory checks.

Key facts in this case

26. Ms B registered an interest in adopting through the Council in October 2018, completing a ‘register of interest’ form. This contained some personal details such as her name, address, relationship status and employment. On her form Ms B explained she had some experience of looking after children through family and friends and that she worked with young people and youth organisations.
27. Around a week after receiving her application the Council wrote to Ms B saying she “may be suitable” to adopt. Her application therefore entered Stage One of the adopter process. The Council allocated a social worker to Ms B’s case.
28. At the beginning of November Ms B met with the social worker and signed a Stage One plan (as referred to at paragraph 17 above). The Council counter-signed this (via the social worker’s line manager) around a week later. The plan identified Ms B would attend a ‘Stage One Group’ training session. The Council said in the agreement “we will discuss any issues or concerns that may emerge during Stage One with you so there is an opportunity to resolve them where possible”.
29. Later in November, Ms B met with her social worker for what the Council described as a ‘midway review’. The Council notes of the meeting said Ms B had booked an appointment with her GP as required to complete a medical assessment. It said Ms B was looking into volunteering at a nursery to gain more experience with early years children. There was some discussion of her childhood and the social worker noted “father was abusive towards mother”. Ms B says this was inaccurate as she described “frequent and heated arguments” involving both her parents. The social worker notes indicate the Council had sent Ms B questionnaires which she needed to complete.
30. Before the meeting took place Ms B completed several forms as follows:

• A ‘SAFE’ questionnaire which asked information about Ms B’s childhood experiences. It asked Ms B to describe her relationship with her parents, their qualities and behaviours. It also asked about Ms B’s relationship status, her state of health and so on.
• A self-assessment form where Ms B set out details of her employment, earnings and general financial health. This explained Ms B runs a social enterprise which works with schools in the field of safeguarding and supporting vulnerable students. The form also explained what support Ms B would receive from family and friends with childcare.
• A form where Ms B listed any previous relationships and the reasons for any breakdown.
• A form describing childhood experiences in more detail. In this Ms B described her parents’ relationship and causes of tension as well as their separation when she was a teenager. Ms B reflected on how that made her feel as a child. The form also described Ms B’s current relations with her parents and other family members.
• A form explaining Ms B’s views towards parenting. In this Ms B reflected on the parenting she received and its strengths; as well as saying what she would do differently.
• A form describing the neighbourhood where she lives.
• A copy of a family tree and a diagram showing Ms B’s support network of family and friends.

31. At the meeting in December Ms B met with the social worker and their line manager. The notes of the meeting record the Council asking Ms B why she wanted to adopt. It noted she had eggs frozen for possible future fertility treatment (Ms B says she had previously mentioned this to her social worker although they did not record this in their notes). The Council recorded Ms B had “decided to leave her choices open in case she finds someone in the future who is willing to have children with her”. It suggested she did not agree with having children out of wedlock for religious reasons. The note also said that Ms B did not regard fertility treatment as a “plan B […] adoption is her only plan”. The Council recorded its manager as saying “people only usually come to adoption as a last resort after they have explored all other options” but in this case “Ms B has not explored all options and has frozen her eggs which is a clear indication she could change her mind and have biological children in the future”. The Council said Ms B “presented as upset, defensive and agitated” during this discussion. At the end of the meeting the Council recorded Ms B as “upset her commitment being questioned […] does not understand why frozen egg is an issue as she believes it is irrelevant to her ability to adopt a child”.
32. Ms B said the questioning on this issue lasted over half an hour and while not defensive she did become distressed. Ms B said she is not religious, and this suggestion shows how the Council did not pay attention to her answers. She explained she took the decision to freeze her eggs before deciding to consider adoption through the Council. She said the Council pressed the issue to the point where its manager asked why Ms B did not “find a sperm donor” instead of pursuing adoption. Ms B says until this point she had no idea that her decision to freeze eggs might have implications for the adoption. She says the social worker knew of this at their earlier meeting and did not record the information. Ms B comments that over and above this it was not until the meeting at the end of the Stage One process that she had any idea the Council might reject her application to become an adoptive parent.
33. The meeting also recorded discussion about Ms B’s childhood. The Council recorded Ms B as saying she did not consider her parent’s relations featured “domestic abuse”. Ms B says the Council put it to her that her mother was an “abused wife” and she did not agree with this description. Ms B explained she had received some counselling when younger, after leaving the family home. The Council notes say that Ms B had “never lived together with a partner”. There was discussion around Ms B’s child-care experience and she confirmed she had arranged to work in a nursery to gain more experience.
34. The Council recorded six days later that it had decided not to progress Ms B’s application to Stage Two of the process. An internal note recorded the reasons as follows:

• that Ms B had a “lack of childcare experience”. It said this had previously led to refusal from another authority;
• that “she did not seem to understand during the interview why we ask prospective adopters to complete their fertility journey before they embark on the adoption process”; Ms B was inconsistent as while she wanted to adopt a child as a single parent, she did not want to have IVF outside a relationship.
• She had “a very limited understanding of what constituted abuse”.
• She “could not prevent a coherent narrative about her childhood experiences and reflect on how this shaped the adult that she is now”.

35. The Council then wrote to Ms B to give its decision. It sent the letter on Friday 21 December 2018. The Council said it recognised Ms B had “some of the qualities we look for in adopters” including that she enjoyed working with and being around children; she was committed to being a parent and had good organisation skills. But the Council said it would not take her application to Stage Two for the reasons set out in paragraph 34. On the final point listed above the Council added: “there was no spontaneity with sharing of information about your childhood which left us wondering as you seem to carry some guilt and shame about what happened. You have not been able to evidence your understanding of the impact of loss and trauma through your own experience of not having had your own child”.
36. The Council also added two more reasons for its decision. It said:

• “you did not clarify how you used counselling to make sense of past experiences”; and
• “we were wondering how you would cope with the big change in lifestyle once you adopt a child […] you have not evidenced that you have lived with anyone else during your adulthood and not clear how you would adapt to this change”.

37. The letter advised Ms B that if she approached another adoption agency the Council would have a duty to inform that agency of its decision and reasons for it.
38. Ms B tried to contact the Council on receipt of the letter. But because it was the Christmas period she could not speak to anyone from the adoption service until the New Year. Ms B found it particularly distressing to receive the letter at that time as she celebrates Christmas with family. Her thoughts had turned towards looking forward to having her own family for future Christmas celebrations. In early January 2019 Ms B went on to contact the Head of Service and asked for a meeting. Ms B said the letter sent by the Council contained factual inaccuracies. For example, Ms B explained that because of her work she had a good understanding of abuse. She also explained she had never applied to another adoption agency, only having a preliminary conversation several years earlier.
39. Ms B spoke to a service manager further to this contact. She sent an email further to that telephone call setting out her understanding of what they discussed. Ms B understood the Council would send her another letter to replace that of 21 December as it acknowledged that letter contained inaccuracies.
40. The Council then sent Ms B a further letter on 31 January 2019. The Council said:

• its letter of 21 December 2018 had contained inaccuracies; it recognised Ms B had lived with others during adulthood, including partners; it also recognised Ms B had a good understanding of abuse given her work;
• it had noted its records accordingly but it still had concerns around Ms B’s “motivation for adoption as opposed to having birth children, an unexplored and unresolved childlessness which could place you in a vulnerable position as an adopted parent setting you up to fail”; the Council recommended Ms B receive counselling for this;
• the letter also said Ms B had “a complex childhood which has left you with unanswered questions and incoherent childhood stories”; the Council said Ms B needed to be resilient and “come to terms with difficulties from [your] own past”;
• the Council apologised that its earlier letter had not set out steps that Ms B could take to have a better chance of becoming an adopter in the future.

41. Ms B later pursued her complaint with the Council. It sent a further letter to her in July 2019. It apologised again for not including in its Stage One letter any recommendations for how Ms B could better prepare to become an adoptive parent in the future. The Council explained it had now changed its service delivery, to that provided by a regional adoption agency. It explained this agency now undertakes assessments and communicates decisions.

My findings

42. The role of the Ombudsman is not to question the professional judgments reached by social workers or other council officers so long as there is no fault in how those judgments were reached. At first sight this complaint may appear to be one of simple disagreement between Ms B and the Council about her suitability to adopt. However, on examination I do not find this to be the case. I find all the judgments relied on by the Council in declining Ms B’s application at Stage One of its adoption process, undermined by faults which I set out below. I also find the Council departed significantly from its stated policy and procedures and cannot provide good reasons for that.
43. First, I note the decision at the crux of the complaint was one taken at Stage One of the adoption procedure. Yet the Council’s decision involved considerations appropriate to Stage Two. Ms B completed detailed questionnaires covering a range of subjects relevant to her application. The level of detail provided by Ms B fits more closely how the Council described Stage Two of its procedure than Stage One. I consider this detail necessary to form the basis for the interviews and assessment that take place during Stage Two. The Council has defended its practice of seeking detailed information at ‘Stage One’ of the process, referring to government guidance that gives it discretion on the scope of preparation it gives to adoptive parents. I accept the guidance suggests the Council can give more than generic advice as it refers to the agency taking account of the “prospective adopter’s circumstances”. However, this does not excuse the Council from failing to explain the process clearly in its published procedure.
44. I also note Ms B’s comment, that until the meeting at the end of Stage One, she had no indication the Council did not intend to progress her application. This appears borne out by the social worker’s notes of their earlier meeting with Ms B which do not suggest any significant concerns with her application. All of this suggests the Council had intended to progress Ms B’s application to Stage Two but changed its mind only at the very end of the Stage One process. I consider this further demonstrated by the Council introducing matters into its decision more appropriate to a detailed assessment. These are matters I consider in more detail below.
45. I find on balance the Council has not shown it was correct to refuse Ms B’s application at Stage One of the adoption process. It should have progressed the application to Stage Two. Failing to do so was a fault.
46. The Council’s second failing was its failure to adhere to the Stage One agreement it entered with Ms B. I accept initial contacts with an adopter may go beyond basic checks such as criminal record or health checks. The Council may have concerns about suitability which go beyond these and if so, it is reasonable it raises these at an early stage. Its agreement anticipates this. But the Council not only commits to discussing such “issues or concerns” but also says it will try and resolve them. I find this consistent with the national minimum standards and the commitment to develop the skills of prospective adopters. No adoptive parent is likely to be perfect. The six month approval process is designed to hone their strengths and improve any weaknesses in their skills and experience. It is a collaborative process. With this ‘room for improvement’ built into the process, the Council will need compelling reasons if it decides to reject an application at Stage One.
47. Yet the Council’s decision not to take Ms B’s application beyond the first stage of its process did not address this commitment. It did not explore how its concerns might be resolved or why it considered any concerns incapable of resolution. For example, the Council cited a concern Ms B had limited experience working with early years children. But it also knew of steps she had taken to gain more experience in this area. The Council’s letter did not explain why it thought this insufficient. The Council failed to take proper account therefore of the agreement it signed with Ms B. That was a fault.
48. Third, I find a failure by the Council to discuss all its reasons for wanting to reject Ms B’s application with her. I am satisfied the meeting in December 2018 flagged up some of the issues the Council would later rely on in its decision to refuse her application. But there were other matters introduced which it did not discuss with her. There is no mention in the minutes of the December 2018 meeting of any concerns the Council had that Ms B did not have enough experience with early years children. Nor did it explore with her what she understood by the term ‘abuse’. It did not discuss with Ms B’s why it found stories about her childhood ‘incoherent’. Nor did it explain why it felt Ms B had not come to terms with her childhood or why it felt she may suffer guilt or shame about this. It did not ask how Ms B had used her counselling. It did not explore changes in lifestyle caused by having a child. It does not appear to have asked her if she had lived with anyone else during her adulthood. Yet all these were reasons the Council introduced for its decision.
49. I consider the meeting was not the place to be having all these discussions as they would seem more appropriate for the detailed assessment foreseen in Stage Two of the adoption process. But at whatever stage the Council wanted to explore such matters it should have tested its views with Ms B. This is something it committed to in the Stage One agreement it signed with her. Being open is also a minimum standard expected of adoption agencies. The Council did not meet these standards. That was a fault.
50. Fourth, I can find no reference in the Council’s decision to it considering the information Ms B provided in the multiple forms she completed. Reading those it is clear they contained information relevant to its decision. For example, they show Ms B had reflected on her own childhood experiences and could articulate coherently on that subject in setting out what she perceived as the strengths of the parenting she received and what she would do differently. They also show Ms B had undertaken some planning for how having an adopted child would impact on her lifestyle. The information contained therefore engages with some of the reasons the Council put forward for its decision and so was surely relevant to it. Yet there is nothing in the Council’s letters to suggest how it took this information into account. That was a fault.
51. Fifth, I find the Council introduced evidence into its decision that was factually inaccurate. It said that Ms B had not lived with anyone else which was wrong. It said Ms B had been rejected by another adoption agency which was also wrong. That was a fault.
52. I do not consider other statements made by the Council contain similar factual inaccuracies. They are instead a reflection of the Council’s subjective judgments. Although had the Council explored matters further with Ms B, as it should have done, then I think it may have reached different judgments. For example, in its exploration of domestic abuse with Ms B. It is agreed in the account of Ms B and the Council that Ms B challenged statements made by the Council about her childhood. It is not clear the Council had any detailed discussion with her about her wider understanding of domestic abuse.
53. The sixth failing I find is in how the Council reached its judgment that Ms B was unsuitable for adoption having not completed IVF treatment. This matter appears to have had high importance in the Council’s thinking. There is a context for this. The Council sets out in policy and in its information leaflet why it considers it unsuitable for parents who have failed at attempts to conceive via IVF to apply to become adoptive parents for at least six months. The policy advances sound reasons for this as parents may need time to come to terms with their infertility and grief. The leaflet to prospective adopters also explains this, talking about the ‘shift’ in moving from pursuing fertility treatment to focusing on becoming an adoptive parent.
54. The evidence suggests the Council sought to apply this policy to Ms B’s circumstances. Its letters referred to Ms B not ‘evidencing’ “the impact of loss and trauma through your own experience of not having had your own child” and having “an unexplored and unresolved childlessness”. Its manager expressed the view that adoption was usually a “last resort” after IVF failed.
55. Yet I cannot see this took account of Ms B’s actual circumstance which was fundamentally different to that of someone who has embarked unsuccessfully on the journey to conceive a child through IVF. Ms B has experienced no ‘loss or trauma’ through failed IVF as she has not been on that journey. I find Ms B was in the same position as any childless prospective adoptive parent who may have a child in the future whether conceived via IVF or otherwise.
56. I accept the Council might want to discuss any future plans to have birth children with a prospective adoptive parent (most likely as part of a detailed assessment of suitability at Stage Two of the procedure). But Ms B made clear to the Council she had no plans to embark on IVF if not in a relationship. Further that the needs of an adoptive child would come first, implying she may never embark further on that journey at all. The Council recorded Ms B saying she did not regard IVF as a ‘plan B’ and adoption was her ‘only plan’.
57. I cannot see what weight the Council gave to these answers in its decision making. I do not consider the Council could infer Ms B would pursue IVF against the interests of a prospective adoptive child contrary to her first-hand statements on the matter. I accept it may have appeared contradictory to the Council that Ms B would want an adoptive child while single, but not embark on IVF. But that was her choice to make. The Council has not advanced reasons why that choice would make Ms B unsuitable to adopt.
58. It was fault therefore for the Council to cite this reason in its decision. Because it was following a policy that did not apply to Ms B circumstances; did not address her own statements on the matter and introduced an irrelevant consideration.
59. A seventh failing lies in the statement that Ms B could not prevent a ‘coherent narrative’ about her childhood. I can find nothing in the Council’s notes of its meetings with Ms B or in the forms she completed that gives me any understanding of why the Council would make such a statement. I can identify no inconsistencies in how Ms B described her childhood. Nor can I identify anything confusing, illogical or improbable in any childhood experience she has described. There is also nothing that explains the statement that Ms B showed a “lack of spontaneity” talking about her childhood. Particularly as the notes do not suggest any reluctance on Ms B’s part to answer questions.
60. Similarly, I can find no explanation for the statement that Ms B might be carrying “guilt or shame” over “what happened” (presumably a reference to her parent’s separation). I cannot see what led the Council to make this statement as its own notes of its meeting with Ms B do not indicate where this impression came from.
61. Both Government guidance and the Council’s own policy make clear the need to put forward reasons for a decision if refusing an application at Stage One. Where the Council is relying on judgment, rather than fact, then it must communicate reasons for those judgments. They must be intelligible to the person receiving the decision. Ms B has expressed her bewilderment at these statements by the Council and it is one I share. In the absence of explanation, I find them without basis. That was a fault.
62. Further faults were also present in the Council’s communication of its decision to Ms B. It failed to include advice to Ms B on what steps it would want her to take to become a suitable adoptive parent in the future. I note the Council has recognised this omission. By sending two letters it also ‘moved the goalposts’ in explaining why it took the decision it did. The introduction of additional reasons to those it recorded in its notes, in its first letter, and then the removal of certain reasons and alternative explanations in the second letter, all suggest a confused and confusing approach.
63. Also, there was fault in the timing of its decision. I quoted above government guidance on the distress which a decision to consider a prospective adopter unsuitable carries with it. That will apply to a ‘Stage One’ decision as much as a ‘Stage Two’. The Council should not therefore make decisions likely to cause upset when the recipient will be unable to contact the service. That will only add unnecessary distress to that inherent in such a decision.
64. In summary therefore the Council was at fault for:

• Making a decision at Stage One of its adoption procedure when the subject matter of that decision was appropriate to a decision made at Stage Two.
• Failing to adhere to the Stage One agreement it signed with Ms B.
• Failing to discuss all its reasons for wanting to refuse Ms B’s application with her.
• Failing to take account of detailed written information provided to it by Ms B in response to its questionnaires relevant to its decision to refuse her application.
• Introducing factually inaccurate information into its decision.
• Wrongly applying its policy towards prospective adopters who have recently failed in attempts to conceive via IVF to Ms B’s circumstances which were fundamentally different.
• Expressing judgments about Ms B’s suitability to adopt for which it provided no reasoning or explanation and for which none exists in the evidence provided.
• Errors in the communication of its decision including in the omission of information and in shifting reasons for it.
• The timing of its decision.

65. I have considered next the injustice that arises from these faults. I consider it flows from my findings that I do not consider the Council should have refused Ms B’s application to adopt at Stage One of its process. I find that had the process moved to Stage Two, then the Council could have reasonably introduced some of the themes explored in its rejection letter, if it had an evidenced reason for doing so. However, I cannot say that a thorough, balanced and objective assessment of the matters raised would have led the Council to the same conclusion, that Ms B was unsuitable to adopt. Further, even if it had concluded the same, Ms B could have had its recommendation scrutinised by the Council’s adoption panel and/or via the independent review mechanism. And even if the decision to refuse on appeal had been upheld Ms B would have had some opportunity to come to terms with that through the provision of counselling.
66. Ms B has therefore suffered not only the distress inherent with such a decision but the uncertainty of not knowing if her adoption could have proceeded but for the fault. This is a source of understandable and considerable distress to her in addition to that which arises from the timing of the decision which I explored above.
67. There is also the question of records. Ms B may choose to apply to adopt again. She has made clear to me this will not be through the Council but possibly another agency. If she does so then that agency may wish to approach the Council for details of its consideration of Ms B’s case. Ms B must consent to the release of information but will not want to appear to any new agency to have something to hide and refuse consent. But she will have a legitimate concern the record as it stands is based on a flawed decision.
68. Finally, there is Ms B’s time and trouble. However, I consider any prospective adoptive parent must go into the process knowing it will take time and patience and with no guarantee of success. So, I do not find this an injustice in this case, separable from Ms B’s distress.

Agreed action

69. I understand the Council accepts these findings. To remedy the injustice set out the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it will:
1. Give an unreserved apology to Ms B in writing accepting the findings of this investigation; I would also welcome the Council offering a meeting to Ms B to deliver the apology in person given the distress caused by its actions; a ‘virtual’ meeting would be acceptable given current social distancing guidance
2. a payment to Ms B of £1000 to reflect the distress she has been caused;
3. agree to remove from its records the letters sent to Ms B on 21 December 2018 and 31 January 2019 from her correspondence file; it will replace those with a statement either to read that: “In December 2018 the Council decided not to progress [Ms B’s] application to adopt at Stage One of its adoption process as it considered her unsuitable to do so. Following an investigation by the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman the Council has agreed that its decision regarding her suitability was taken with administrative fault” or some other wording as the Council and Ms B may both agree on; it will retain copies of the letters and ensure these are password protected or otherwise labelled to ensure there is no disclosure except that required by law or on Ms B’s consent.
70. The Council will also consider what wider lessons it might learn from this complaint in conjunction with the agency that delivers adoption services on its behalf. It will:
1. introduce the offer of a meeting with any prospective adoptive parent whose application falls at Stage One of the process;
2. issue a reminder to officers on the ingredients that should go into any letter sent at that point;
3. review the information provided about the extent of information needed from prospective adoptive parents at Stage One of the process; both in those procedures published on its website and in the information pack given to prospective adopters.
71. The Council will send us confirmation it has completed these actions within three months of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

72. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms B. The Council has agreed action which I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I am satisfied I can complete my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman