Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it assessed Mrs X as a potential adopter for a child. However, it was at fault for failing to adequately manage Mrs X’s expectations throughout the process. As a result, Mrs X believed she would be able to adopt the child. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment for the distress caused and take steps to improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the process used by the Council when it assessed whether she and her husband could adopt a child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mrs X. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X over the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs X and her husband, Mr X have two adopted children. In May 2020, a social worker from another local authority area contacted Mrs X as the birth mother of her youngest child had given birth to a child, child C. The social worker asked if Mr and Mrs X were interested in adopting child C. Child C was living with foster carers.
8. At this point the Council were exploring the possibility of child C being placed with half siblings. The Council issued legal proceedings against child C’s parents in early May 2020 and obtained an Interim Care Order. The final hearing was due to take place in November 2020.
9. In June 2020, the Council agreed the adoption team would discuss the possibility of placing child C with siblings and the adoption team contacted the adopters of child’s C’s siblings to see whether any of them wanted to be considered as a placement for child C. Mrs X confirmed her family would like to adopt child C. The Council’s adoption team asked the Regional Adoption Agency to explore the possibility of Mr and Mrs X adopting child C.
10. In July 2020, the case was allocated to a social worker to explore the viability of assessing and approving Mr and Mrs X as adoptive parents, should the outcome of the legal proceedings decide adoption was the appropriate plan for child C.
11. In late July 2020, the Council began the process of assessing Mr and Mrs X’s viability to adopt child C. In mid-September 2020 the Council gained permission to access Mr and Mrs X’s adoptive records.
12. In October 2020, the Council held a meeting with Mrs X remotely to gather more information. On 15 October 2020 the Council received information it had requested about Mr and Mrs X’s previous placement.
13. On 23 October 2020, two social workers from the Council visited Mr and Mrs X at their home. Mrs X said the social workers gave her the impression she would be able to adopt child C and the Council would likely approve her as a match. Mrs X also said one of the social workers asked her how her other children felt about child C moving in. There are no notes from this meeting.
14. In early November 2020, the court granted a placement order for child C and agreed with the Council’s plan that child C should be adopted. The Council told Mrs X on 6 November 2020 it was waiting for a managers meeting to confirm the outcome of her viability assessment.
15. On 25 November 2020, the Council held an Interagency Agreement Meeting to discuss Mr and Mrs X as potential adopters of child C. The notes from this meeting showed the Council considered concerns about Mrs X’s household. The notes showed the Council wanted to explore whether being with a half sibling and waiting for Mr and Mrs X to undergo a full assessment would outweigh the need for child C to be placed as a single child.
16. On 8 December 2020, the Council decided against putting Mr and Mrs X forward as a possible placement for child C. The Council decided child C should be placed as a single child in a family and the advantage of this was not outweighed by the biological relationship with another child. The Council received input from its Children’s Services department when coming to this view. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X setting out its decision.
17. Mrs X wrote to the Council on 10 December 2020 and asked it to reconsider its decision. Mrs X said there were errors in the viability assessment which included information about Mr X’s adult son, the family’s church attendance, financial situation, and Mrs X’s qualifications. Mrs X said the Council knew they had other children from the time Mr and Mrs X expressed an interest in adopting child C but still engaged with them.
18. The Council responded to Mrs X and said it made the decision to place child C in a single child placement after considering Child C’s needs.

Mrs X’s complaint

19. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council on 4 February 2021. Mrs X complained about the way the Council carried out the viability assessment and its decision not to place child C with her.
20. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s complaint on 17 February 2021 and provided its final response on 3 March 2021. The Council said:
• It decided what would be in child C’s best interests at the same time as completing the viability assessment for Mr and Mrs X. The Council said the viability assessment was a preliminary assessment to establish the facts and what it would need to consider in a more in depth assessment should the Council have considered Mr and Mrs X suitable.
• It decided child C would be best placed in a family as a single child at this point in their life. The Council said its consideration of this evolved over time with a growing understanding of child C’s needs. The Council said it did not make a commitment that the outcome of the viability assessment would lead to child C being placed with Mr and Mrs X.
• Its decision about child C was child centred and it considered that a biological sibling relationship does not outweigh the benefits to child C of being the sole focus of their parent’s attention in their early years or of a timely permanent placement.
• It has not found any evidence to suggest Mrs X was told she could adopt child C, however it will review practice guidance for the social work team to ensure there is more clarity in future practice when carrying out viability assessments.
21. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

22. I have not found the Council at fault for the way it completed the viability assessment or for how it came to its decision. The Council initially started to consider the possibility of Mr and Mrs X as adoptive parents in June 2020 and started a viability assessment. The Council obtained Mr and Mrs X’s adoptive records, held meetings with them remotely and carried out a visit by social workers, prior to concluding the assessment. The Council also evidenced it considered the needs of child C and sought advice from children’s services prior to deciding on what type of placement child C should have.
23. In its decision, the Council explained it decided child C needed a sole placement with a family and Mr and Mrs X could not offer this as they had other children. The Council considered the benefits of a placement with Mrs X as they adopted a biological sibling of child C but the Council considered this did not outweigh the benefits of child C having a sole placement which could start immediately.
24. Overall, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make after considering child C’s needs. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with this, however I am satisfied the Council considered the needs of child C in coming to its decision.
25. Mrs X also complained about the time taken to complete the assessment. From the evidence seen, the Council only received consent to obtain Mr and Mrs X’s adoption records in September 2020. At this time there was still a pending court process to decide whether to grant a placement order and agree that child C should be put forward for adoption. The Court process finished in November 2020 and the Council completed the viability assessment in early December 2020. While I acknowledge Mrs X’s frustrations about the outcome of the assessment, I do not consider the Council at fault for the time taken to complete this.
26. Following the completion of the viability assessment, Mrs X said it contained incorrect information about her church attendance, financial situation and Mr X’s adult son. While I acknowledge Mrs X says some information was incorrect and this could amount to minor fault, I am satisfied that on balance that this has not had any bearing on the decision by the Council to place child C in a sole placement.
27. While I have not found the Council at fault for the way it carried out the assessment and for the way it came to its decision about child C, it was at fault for its communication with Mrs X and for failing to manage her expectations.
28. From the communication seen, Mrs X believed she would be able to adopt child C and that the outcome of the viability assessment would determine this. This was not the case as the viability assessment was only to see if Mrs X could be considered for adopting child C and if so, what areas needed further investigation.
29. Following the home visit from social workers at the end of October 2020, Mrs X said the social workers led her to believe she would be approved. In addition, Mrs X said social workers asked her about discussing adopting child C with her other children. Following this Mrs X said she did discuss child C moving in with her other children. The Council’s position is that it did not lead Mrs X to believe she could adopt child C.
30. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available and relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. In this case I have not seen any records from the home visit. On balance I am satisfied Mrs X believed she would be successful in adopting child C and raised her expectations as a result. Had the Council been clearer in its communication from the start of the process, Mrs X may not have been expecting child C to be placed with her family.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of my decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Provide a written apology to Mrs X for raising her expectations about adopting child C and for not adequately setting out the process from the start.
• Pay Mrs X £150 in recognition of the distress she suffered as a result of having her expectations raised about adopting child C.
• Consider what improvements the Council can make to its guidance to ensure prospective adopters are adequately informed about the process for carrying out viability assessments. The Council should report its findings back to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was not at fault for how it assessed Mrs X as a potential adopter. However, it was at fault for failing to adequately manage Ms X’s expectations throughout the process. As a result, Mrs X believed she would be able to adopt a child. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman