116 annual report 2012 Based on an individual assessment of the considerations to which the authorities had given importance when making their decisions, the Ombudsman found that in a number of respects adequate evidence had not been provided, meaning that there were material shortcomings in the evidence provided. The Ombudsman took as his basis that the local authority had had a ‘suspicion’ as described in section 10 of the Act on Legal Protection in Connection with the Administration’s Use of Compulsory Intervention and Duties of Disclosure. The local authority should therefore have given the woman guidance that she was not obliged to provide information which might affect the decision on the punishable offence presumed to have been committed. The Ombudsman was also of the opinion that the local authority’s second meeting with the woman did not meet the requirements on consultations of parties to cases set out in section 19 of the Public Administration Act as, based on an individual assessment, the local authority ought to have consulted her in writing. Finally, the Ombudsman found that it was an evident error that the Social Tribunal made its decision on a partially incorrect factual basis with regard to the division of an amount of money between the woman and her former spouse and that the Tribunal’s statement to the Ombudsman contained the same factual error. The error had been pointed out to the Social Tribunal once and twice, respectively. 2012-17. Refusal of artificial insemination treatment for disabled couple. Grounds given for decision A couple who both suffered from spastic paralysis and were wheelchair users were refused artificial insemination treatment by a consultant doctor at a fertility clinic on the grounds that there was reasonable doubt about their ability to care adequately for a child. The National Social Appeals Board found no grounds to depart from the consultant doctor’s assessment of the couple’s suitability as parents and therefore upheld the decision. The Ombudsman asked the consultant doctor and the National Social Appeals Board to explain the basis for their decisions and to expand on the grounds given for the decisions.