'Super' sperm donors not so super, warns judge

In February 2025 the judgment in the case of 'Joe Donor' was published, publicly naming prolific sperm donor Robert Charles Albon, following a hearing in October 2023 (see BioNews 1277).

Understandably, the case attracted strong national media interest, with articles in BBC News, The Guardian, London Evening Standard, The Independent and The Times, among others. As controversial human interest stories, we are fascinated by these so-called 'super-donors'. So much is written and spoken about them and a fresh media frenzy arises whenever an example hits the headlines.

I am always astonished when I hear of sperm donors bragging about how many children they have sired. What drives the men to become career sperm donors? And what drives the women to choose these men?

I can't claim to know what drives the men (although I have my suspicions), but the incentive for the women concerned is more easily identifiable. It often involves a degree of 'desperation' for a baby. I use that word without judgment and more as an explanation of why these risks are taken in using unregulated sperm donors outside of a clinic.

While undoubtedly some arrangements work without issues (and often they are those that we don't hear about), the ones that do not work can prove to be the stuff of 'nightmares' – as was the case for the mothers in the Joe Donor case.

This case involved a same sex female couple, 'B' and 'C' and their two-year-old child 'D', conceived via at-home insemination from sperm donated by 'A'. B was the birth mother (and as such the legal mother with automatic parental responsibility) and C was her wife. However, as D was conceived prior to their marriage, A was the legal father and C had no legal rights or parental responsibility. An error with the birth registration saw C named on the birth certificate as the second legal parent, but this was later rectified.

The applications before the court, following the fact finding, were:

• A's application for a child arrangements order for time with D, for parental responsibility and changes to D's names.
• A's application for a Declaration of Parentage.
• C's application for parental responsibility and a child arrangements order formalising D's time with her as, during the course of the proceedings, B and C had separated.
• The Guardian's application for a s91(14) order to prevent A from making further court applications without the court’s prior approval, and that the judgment should be reported naming him so that the public should be aware of the dangers of unregulated sperm donation.

The judge was able to easily deal with C's applications and granted the 'lives with' child arrangements order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989. This provided C with parental responsibility, finding that the making of the order recognises C's important and continuing role in D's life, and that it was both necessary and proportionate for the order to be made.

The making of this order would have been extremely important for C (and D) because, due to the conception having taken place before their marriage, she had no legal rights – a situation all the more stark following C and B's separation. Interestingly, the judge remarked that B had inappropriately played the 'biological' card initially, as she could not contemplate being without D following their separation. Ultimately, she agreed to C having time with D and having parental responsibility – which both B and C had originally intended.

What they had not expected when choosing A as the donor, was to end up embroiled in heavily contested Children Act proceedings, with A making claims that went against their initial agreement. This is one of the risks facing women who are unmarried when using an unregulated sperm donor. Any known sperm donation agreement is unenforceable, and legal fathers can make use of the courts. Even if a known sperm donor was not the legal father by virtue of the couple's marriage at the time of conception, he can still make claims if the court gives him permission to do so, as in the 2013 case of Re G; Re Z (Children: Sperm Donors: Leave to Apply for Children Act Orders).

Ultimately, A failed in all his applications. In respect of the name change, the judge found no positive welfare benefit for D and refused the application. The application for contact with D was also refused. While acknowledging that it is generally best for children to have a relationship with both parents, the judge found that there would be no real emotional or psychological benefit in D knowing A, and that the risk of harm was too great, 'because of the character and mindset of A'. Similarly, A's application for parental responsibility was also refused. Both B, C and the Guardian were all concerned that if A had parental responsibility, he would use it as a way to control the mothers, and that his motivation for wanting it was not child focused.

For A's application for a Declaration of Parentage, which if made, would have seen A's name put on D's birth certificate as father, the judge refused to hear the application on the basis that it was not in D's best interests for him to do so.

The judge granted the Guardian's application for a section 91(14) order, which was made until D's 16th birthday. This meant that A could not make any further applications to court in respect of D for their entire childhood, without the court’s permission. This provides a filter so that B and C are not troubled with any more spurious applications unless the court has deemed the application can proceed first.

Crucially, the judge also granted the Guardian’s application to name A for the benefit of the wider public, stating:

'On my findings A is a sperm donor who has advertised his services on the basis that he will allow the mother to make decisions about whether he sees the child. And yet in this case he has ignored that position and pursued contact, parental responsibility, a declaration of parentage and a change of name for over two years in a manner which is rightly described by C as a 'nightmare'. The public, and vulnerable women seeking to get pregnant, should know that is the case and they risk a similar ‘horror story'. There is a clear public interest in naming A as "Joe Donor"'.

Joe Donor is not the first prolific sperm donor to be named in a UK court judgment. Mrs Justice Lieven found that it was also in the public interest to name James MacDougall in another 2023 case. Here, MacDougall donated his sperm knowing that he had an inheritable genetic condition known as Fragile X syndrome, which causes a range of developmental problems including learning difficulties.

So, what should single women and unmarried lesbian couples do if they want to conceive using a donor outside of a clinic? These horror stories won't happen to everyone but it's important for recipients to understand the risk and then take steps to mitigate that risk.

We know that obtaining a sperm donor through a clinic is the best way to protect yourself against a donor's claims in the family court, as they simply won't have any legal rights. But clinics are expensive, and some do prefer to choose a known donor. Improving access to regulated fertility treatment on the NHS would go some way to reducing the dangers of unregulated sperm donation, particularly for the LGBTQ community. The government taking forward the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's proposals to change donor anonymity would also help, so that donors can be known during childhood, rather than at 18. Those that want their child to potentially know their donor before becoming 18 can therefore choose the clinic route rather than the unregulated one.