Adoption Hopes Collapse After Councils' Failures
Couple told to take a year off work before placement withdrawn
The adoption never proceed due to concerns about the suitability of the placement. Picture: AI generated
September 12, 2026
A man and a woman hoping to adopt a child were told to take a year’s adoption leave from work before later having the promise of starting their family withdrawn.
The couple, named only as Mr and Mrs X in a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) report, had engaged in a months-long process which included meeting the child several times, speaking to medical professionals, and buying children’s toys and equipment for their home. Mrs X had taken one year adoptive leave from work before being forced to return to work once her employer had already found her temporary replacement.
The LGO found a number of failures in how Ealing Council, Hounslow Council, and Southwark Council handled the adoption process. The multiple agencies involved eventually ruled that the child, who referred to the Mr and Mrs X in a meeting as “mummy and daddy”, should not be adopted by the couple after concerns about the suitability of the placement.
Hounslow Council originally had planned for the child, named as Y, to move in with Mr and Mrs X to avoid having to move to a new foster placement. However, the prospective parents wished to discuss Y’s medical needs and meet Y before agreeing.
Mr and Mrs X expected the meeting with the medical adviser to take place promptly, but there is no evidence that Hounslow took any action to arrange this meeting until after Southwark had chased it up. The watchdog found that during the adoption process, Mr and Mrs X were told to keep the booked panel date free (where the outcome would be decided), under the impression that the adoptive placement would begin very promptly after this.
Both were asked to take adoption leave from the date of the panel hearing – had they not agreed to do this, they consider there would have been questions about their commitment to Y. As a result, Mrs X had taken a year’s adoption leave from work with her employer finding a replacement.
However, the ombudsman ruled the councils should not have insisted on this before the adoption was certified – this caused Mrs X “professional damage”. The ombudsman ruled this to be a fault on behalf of Ealing Council and Hounslow Council.
The couple also said that it was very upsetting to be told the placement would not go ahead, and then to have to tell their relatives that the planned family Zoom meeting with them that day (to discuss and support the transition of Y to Mr and Mrs X’s home) had to be cancelled.
Despite having ongoing concerns about whether the couple and the child were a suitable match, Hounslow Council encouraged Mr and Mrs X to purchase items such as clothing, toys and bedding for the child ahead of the move. Had Mr and Mrs X been formally approved as an appropriate match for Y by an adoption panel, they would have been entitled to their expenses being covered – including travel costs to the initial meetings with the child.
The watchdog concluded that Mr and Mrs X should have been told in writing, at the outset, that their travel costs to see Y would not be met and that only travel costs and a settling in grant would be considered after they had been formally approved as a suitable match by the panel and agency decision maker. Hounslow was found at fault here as the prospective parents say it was Hounslow who advised them to purchase the items.
Ealing Council was directed by the ombudsman to reimburse the travel costs as it had not outlined that these costs would not be covered at the time.
Hounslow Council rejected the idea that it encouraged the couple to purchase items. However, throughout the process there were numerous meetings where council officers did not take notes, nor keep a record of events – as such the ombudsman ruled on the balance of probabilities, and given the poor record keeping by Hounslow, this is more likely to have happened than not.
Early on, Hounslow had some doubts about the match, but let matters drift, missing an opportunity for it to carefully consider all the known information at an earlier stage of the process. This was deemed another fault.
All three councils were found to have failed in their management of the initial meetings between the spouses and the child, with poor record keeping and communication – Ealing Council’s records on the initial meetings were blank. Hounslow and Ealing were found at fault for not having a clear policy on how these meetings should be managed.
Moreover, the third meeting with the child was not observed properly, with the Southwark council officer leaving after 30 minutes – this was a fault. It was discovered that both Hounslow and Ealing staff deleted messages from an encrypted messaging app with the couple without placing a record of them into files.
The report states: “Deleting records means key evidence is lost and inevitably gave rise to suspicions and mistrust by the complainants.”
Mr and Mrs X were caused “avoidable distress” by being advised to make plans for a placement, by the poor handling of the ‘meet before match’ meetings, by the failure to properly record events and for deleting information, by a delay in collecting Y’s possessions and by the failure to deal with their complaints in a co-ordinated and timely way under the statutory complaints process.
An Ealing Council spokesperson said: “We have accepted the ombudsman’s findings and recommendations in full and are sorry for the distress, grief, time and trouble caused to the complainants and have apologised to them for the faults and injustice which happened in this case.
“Since these events, we have taken swift action to strengthen our practice alongside our local authority partner and the other regional adoption agency including clearer guidance for prospective adopters about the matching and placement process and when formal adoption decisions are made. We have also strengthened procedures around communication, consent, record-keeping and the coordinated handling of adoption-related complaints to help ensure a more consistent experience for families.”
A Hounslow Council spokesperson said: “We have accepted the ombudsman’s recommendations in full and have apologised to Mr and Mrs X. We have also taken swift action to strengthen our practice alongside our regional adoption agency, Adopt London West, in response to the findings.”
Southwark Council did not respond to a request for comment.
Philip James Lynch - Local Democracy Reporter
Like Reading Articles Like This? Help Us Produce More This site remains committed to providing local community news and public interest journalism. Articles such as the one above are integral to what we do. We aim to feature as much as possible on local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, community-based initiatives and even helping people find missing pets. We’ve always done that and won’t be changing, in fact we’d like to do more. However, the readership that these stories generates is often below that needed to cover the cost of producing them. Our financial resources are limited and the local media environment is intensely competitive so there is a constraint on what we can do. We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and the expansion of our coverage in this area. A suggested monthly payment is £8 but we would be grateful for any amount for instance if you think this site offers the equivalent value of a subscription to a daily printed newspaper you may wish to consider £20 per month. If neither of these amounts is suitable for you then contact info@neighbournet.com and we can set up an alternative. All payments are made through a secure web site. One-off donations are also appreciated. Choose The Amount You Wish To Contribute. If you do support us in this way we’d be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor. For businesses we offer the chance to be a corporate sponsor of community content on the site. For £30 plus VAT per month you will be the designated sponsor of at least one article a month with your logo appearing if supplied. If there is a specific community group or initiative you’d like to support we can make sure your sponsorship is featured on related content for a one off payment of £50 plus VAT. All payments are made through a secure web site. |