Judge rules against determining paternity of child conceived with mixed sperm

A man who mixed his sperm with his father's to impregnate his partner will not have to undergo a paternity test, the High Court has decided.

The man, known as PQ for confidentiality reasons, and his then-partner JK, had had difficulty getting pregnant. Since the couple could not afford IVF treatment at the time, they decided to conceive a child by injecting a mixture of PQ's and his father's sperm into JK's uterus. The couple had planned to keep the circumstances of the conception private, however, Barnsley Council was told. Appealing to the High Court in Sheffield, the Council requested a paternity test to identify who the biological father was.

The Hon Mr Justice Nigel Poole, who rejected the bid, said that the Council does not have 'parental responsibility' or 'personal interest' in the boy's biological parentage.

He further explained: 'A wish to uphold the public interest in maintaining accurate records of births does not confer a personal interest in the determination of such an application.'

Intrauterine insemination, which is the injection of sperm into a woman's uterus, offers a less expensive and less invasive option than IVF treatment for couples facing fertility problems, according to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The boy, known as D, who is now five years old, was said to have a father and son relationship with PQ, according to the High Court hearing last month.

Describing D's situation, Justice Poole said: '[D] is a unique child who would not exist but for the unusual arrangements made for his conception, but those arrangements have also created the potential for him to suffer emotional harm were he to learn of them.'

Concluding his dismissal of the bid, Justice Poole said it is a 'matter for them [JK, PQ and his father]' to decide whether to tell the boy the truth at a future date.

This is not the first time a sperm mix-up case has been brought to the court. In the United States, lawsuit cases of mishandled artificial insemination have been reported previously (see BioNews 1222, 1131, and 1010).