Should Annex A reports—setting out the prospective adopters’ suitability—be routinely disclosed to birth parents seeking leave to oppose an adoption order?

Rima Baruah and Artis Kakonge of No5 Chambers recently appeared in Confidential Prospective Adopters v BM & Ors EWHC 907 (Fam), a significant High Court decision before Ms Justice Harris DBE addressing the disclosure of Annex A reports (the detailed adoption suitability reports concerning prospective adopters) to birth parents seeking leave to oppose an adoption order under s.47(5)–(7) Adoption and Children Act 2002.

The case, which involved six barristers from No5 Chambers representing the local authority, the children’s guardian, and an intervenor (the regional adoption agency), highlights the sector‑wide importance of Annex A confidentiality and its implications for adopter recruitment.

In this decision, the High Court has provided important guidance on Annex A disclosure at the leave to oppose stage, offering reassurance for local authorities and prospective adopters alike.

Background

The case concerned G, a 3‑year‑old child, who had been placed at birth in local authority care and later became the subject of final care and placement orders. G was subsequently placed with confidential prospective adopters, and an adoption application followed. The birth mother sought leave to oppose the adoption order and requested disclosure of the full Annex A report, arguing it was central to her application and her Article 6 and 8 rights.

Local authority’s position

On behalf of Dudley MBC, Rima Baruah (leading) and Artis Kakonge opposed disclosure at this preliminary stage, advancing the following key points:

  • The leave stage focuses on the parent’s circumstances, not the adopters’ suitability.
  • Annex A is not necessary for determining the leave application; the court can rely on the public law materials from the care and placement proceedings as the appropriate benchmark.
  • Annex A is expressly confidential under the FPR, so the correct test is necessity, not mere relevance (drawing on Re D and Re T).
  • Disclosure would create a real risk of harm through jigsaw identification, placement instability, and emotional impact on the child, while adding little to the fairness of the process.

The decision

The High Court largely accepted the local authority’s submissions.

Harris J held that the relevance of Annex A at the leave stage is limited and that there is no presumption in favour of disclosure. The report remains confidential, and any disclosure requires careful balancing of competing Article 6 and Article 8 rights.

Importantly, the Court emphasised that while it cannot say disclosure of the full Annex A report will never be granted at the leave stage, it would be a highly unusual case in which such disclosure is merited. In this case, the marginal utility of Annex A was outweighed by the real risks to the child’s welfare and to the privacy and security of the prospective adopters. Refusing disclosure was a necessary and proportionate interference with the mother’s rights.

The application for disclosure was refused, and the leave application was remitted to the Family Court for determination.

Why this matters

For local authorities and adoption agencies, the judgment provides clear and practical reassurance that the court will maintain firm control over Annex A disclosure at the leave stage, preventing it from becoming a matter of routine while recognising that truly exceptional cases may justify a different outcome.

For prospective adopters, it reinforces that their confidentiality will be robustly protected. The court expressly recognised the risks of jigsaw identification, placement disruption, and emotional harm, and gave those factors significant weight.

Taken together, the decision supports placement stability and gives greater confidence that sensitive adopter information will not be unnecessarily exposed—an important factor in sustaining adopter recruitment in an already stretched system.

Key takeaway

Annex A will usually be of limited relevance to a s.47(5)/(7) leave application, and full disclosure at that stage will remain exceptional and reserved for highly unusual cases, not routine.

To explore the court’s reasoning in full, read the judgment here.