Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an adoption process. It is unlikely we would find fault and there are other bodies better suited to consider parts of their complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about children services officers’ actions in advance of the adoption of D.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X which included the Council’s response.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

8. Mr X and his partner, Y, had been proposed as prospective adopters for a baby, D, in late 2020. They had hoped the process would be started to move D to their home in December. But the Court decided D and their mother should attend an assessment unit.
9. In May 2021, the Council told Mr X and Y the adoption could be back on. That month the Court granted a freeing order which allowed the Council to move D to prospective adopters. The Council set a date for the transition to begin in late June. It did so, and D moved to their home in July 2021. They have since adopted D.
10. During May and June, Mr X and Y say D’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) caused confusion and uncertainty by wanting to consider other possible adoption matches. They believe the IRO discriminated against them by reason of race, gender and sexuality.
11. Mr X complained in September 2021 about the IRO and a social workers’ actions. The Council replied and Mr X asked for it to be escalated to stage two of the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. The Council in July 2021 refused to do so. It said their complaint was not suitable for the Children Act procedure and both the allocated Investigating Officer and outside Independent Person had refused to accept it as one.

Analysis

12. The Children Act complaints procedure is governed by regulations. While some duties of adoption services and placement are within that process. Mr X’s complaint is not the type it usually covers. We are unlikely to be critical of the Council’s decision not to include this complaint within that scheme.
13. The adoption process is unpredictable. This is not Council fault. The Council cannot prejudge a Court’s decision. And prospective adoptions can collapse at any point even when the process goes smoothly. Councils are expected to consider matching options.
14. Mr X says he wants the IRO suspended. They do not believe they are professionally the right person to be in that role. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect them to report their concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.
15. Mr X’s complaint also includes data protection issues. These are not part of the Children Act scheme.
16. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation.
17. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Mr X should therefore approach the ICO about their concerns.
18.  

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault causing a significant injustice and there are other bodies better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman