Adoption


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (15 015 260)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 16-Aug-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the support and information the Council provided to Mrs B after a special guardianship order was made. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (17 006 233)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 07-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs K's complaint about the Council taking her son into care when he was six months old. We cannot investigate the court action which caused the injustice she claims or change the decisions she complains about, and it would be reasonable for Mrs K to go back to court if she wants different arrangements for her son.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (17 005 961)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 04-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about post-adoption matters. It is unlikely we would find fault.

  • Cumbria County Council (17 003 673)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 02-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's plan to place a child for adoption and the actions of the social worker. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction because it involves court decisions.

  • Birmingham City Council (16 015 007)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 20-Jul-2017

    Summary: The Council delayed in dealing with Mr X's complaint under the children's services statutory complaints procedure. It did not complete the process properly and so the outcome of the complaint and the actions it needed to take to put things right were not properly addressed. The Council should take action to remedy this now.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (16 016 634)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 19-Jul-2017

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained the Council failed to provide appropriate adoption support to the family. There was evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr and Mrs C and the Council has been asked to apologise.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (16 011 447)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 03-Jul-2017

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to consider his family's needs for support after they adopted a sibling group of children. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to carry out a reassessment and make a payment.

  • Essex County Council (16 007 905)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 28-Jun-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X and Mr Y's application to become adopters. The Council did not address concerns it had directly with Miss X and Mr Y and as a result they withdrew from the adoption process. The Council has agreed to amend its records, apologise and pay them £250 to acknowledge the distress this caused.

  • Medway Council (16 016 161)

    Statement Not upheld Adoption 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it provided support to Mrs B following her separation with Mr B, or in the advice it provided to help them manage their daughter's behaviour. Although Mr B was not happy with the advice, this does not amount to fault by the Council.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 019 133)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 02-Jun-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained that when he was adopted as a baby in the 1970's, the Council should not have placed him with a family who lived so close to his natural parents. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint further as it is too late and the reasons for investigating now are not strong enough. Also the key decisions involved will have been made by the courts. So the complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

;