INNOCENT RELATIVES CAST AS PERPETRATORS BY THE OPG (OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN)

Hidden in Plain Sight: The Secrecy and Power of the Office of the Public Guardian

The role of the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) in England and Wales is, on paper, laudable. Tasked under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 with protecting some of society’s most vulnerable, the mentally incapacitated, those with severe illness or debilitation, its remit should command public trust. 

Yet for many families caught in its orbit, the reality has been something quite different: an opaque system, court-enforced gagging orders, accusations of wrongdoing levelled at innocent relatives, and little meaningful public scrutiny.

Secrecy by Default

The Court of Protection (CoP), which often works in tandem with the OPG when deputies are appointed or decisions made about capacity, remains shrouded in confidentiality. The legal framework makes it a contempt of court to publish a judgment unless the judge gives permission. As one commentary observed:

“We are finding that a significant minority of Transparency Orders prohibit identification of public bodies … for no apparent reason.” 

Practically speaking, this means families may find themselves accused of wrongdoing (or coerced into quiet settlement) while the processes, evidence and reasoning remain entirely hidden from view.

Worse still, these orders can apply to public bodies such as the OPG itself, insulating its decision-making from public scrutiny. 

Innocent Relatives Cast as Perpetrators

At the heart of the concern is that relatives, often the person closest to the vulnerable individual and already facing huge financial and emotional burdens are suspected, investigated or side-lined with minimal transparency. While specific names and dates are understandably anonymised, the patterns are evident:

Families recount being labelled as “concerned with their own interests” by the OPG or Court, despite no credible evidence of abuse.

The stress on relatives is profound. One family’s voice:

“We are all receiving medical help for the stress … it’s not stress due to my father’s illness – but due to all of this!” 

Although I could not locate a publicly-reported case in which a relative was definitively found innocent yet publicly cleared (owing to anonymity orders), the fact that the narrative of “accused relative” can proceed behind closed doors is deeply troubling. The system allows for a relative to be treated as a suspect, with the game largely hidden from view.

The Power Imbalance: Vulnerable Person vs State Apparatus

The vulnerable individual is meant to be the system’s focus. Yet the apparatus—OPG investigations, deputies, Court proceedings—can shift the locus of control away from the person and their trusted circle into a framework where state-appointed officials and judicial fiat dominate.

Some commentators argue the Court of Protection “institutionalises inequality … allows untested and hearsay evidence, restricts participation and disclosure” and thus risks breaching fair-trial standards. 

When trust and cooperation of relatives is replaced by suspicion and exclusion, the very aim of safeguarding may be undermined. Families describe how they are “never told what the goal-posts are”, “constantly moved on”, and prevented from simply being a family with their loved one. 

When the “Protector” Becomes the Gatekeeper

The OPG’s formal account of its investigative powers states that although around 2,800 investigations may be opened each year, “in most cases we find that there is no case to answer”. 

Yet this doesn’t mitigate the impact on those lives on which such investigations are launched. The act of being under investigation, being treated as a potential perpetrator, often sealed behind ‘confidentiality’, can itself be destructive: emotionally, financially and socially.

The official complaints procedure of the OPG emphasises responsiveness—aiming to reply within 10 working days, offering apologies and redress for proven mistakes.  But that only works after the damage is done. The system does little to ensuretransparency before or during the process which has the potential to pulverise a family’s trust and life.

Why It Matters

Transparency is not optional when the state effectively takes over personal decision-making, finances and care of those lacking capacity. Without clear oversight, power becomes unaccountable.

Relatives must not be collateral damage in protection systems. When a relative is treated as suspect, the family unit is fractured, and the very support the vulnerable person needs is compromised.

Public confidence in the guardianship framework demands more than good outcomes: it demands visible, understandable, and fair processes. The current veil of secrecy undermines deeper trust.

What Could Change

Defaults to openness: The CoP should adopt publication of hearings or summaries by default unless there is a compelling privacy reason—not the other way around.

Independent oversight: A body independent from the OPG should audit cases where relatives were investigated but cleared, ensuring learning and accountability.

Clearer pathways for families: When families are told they are “being investigated”, they should have the right to know the allegations, the evidence, and to respond—rather than being passive subjects.

Redress for families harmed by process: If a relative has been wrongly treated as a perpetrator, there should be accessible mechanisms for apology, compensation and restoration of name.

In Conclusion

The Office of the Public Guardian was established to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Yet somewhere along the way, the balance of power has shifted. Instead of championing the rights of the vulnerable, the system risks treating their trusted relatives as adversaries and cloaking its actions in near-total secrecy.

For a democracy that values dignity, justice and openness, this cannot stand. The very people who ought to be protected—the most vulnerable—deserve more than a system that operates behind locked doors. Families deserve more than the fear of being branded perpetrators without ever seeing the case against them.

The guardianship framework must be reformed not just in form but in spirit. And the public, including those whose voices are quieted by gagging orders must hold it to account.