High Court flags risks in unregulated arrangements as donor loses parentage application
A High Court decision has highlighted the legal uncertainty and risks created by unregulated sperm donation arrangements outside licensed fertility clinics.
In Re N (Sperm Donor: Declaration of Parentage) , the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, refused an application by a sperm donor seeking a declaration that he was the legal father of a child conceived through a private arrangement.
The donor, publicly identified as Robert Albon, had advertised his services online, including via social media, and operated outside any regulated clinical framework. He claimed to have fathered a significant number of children through such arrangements.
The case arose after a couple who had used his sperm named the mother’s partner as the child’s father on the birth certificate. Mr Albon subsequently applied for a declaration of parentage and initially sought orders to promote a relationship with the child, although those wider applications were not pursued.
Dismissing the claim, the court held that granting a declaration of parentage would be “manifestly contrary to public policy”.
In reaching that conclusion, the judge examined the nature of the donor’s activities, which involved providing sperm through unregulated arrangements without the safeguards associated with licensed fertility treatment, such as medical screening, formal consent processes and legal clarity over parental status.
The court emphasised that biological parenthood alone was not determinative in such cases, particularly where doing so would cut across the statutory framework governing assisted reproduction.
Sir Andrew McFarlane observed: “It is necessary to state that the facts of this case are extreme.”
He added: “It is not uncommon for conception to be arranged through sperm donated by a friend of the mother, or by some other single, informal arrangement. This case has involved sperm donation on a wholly different scale. Nothing that I have said in this judgment is intended to impact, one way or the other, on such cases, which will continue to be determined on their own facts as they arise.”
The judge also made clear that the statutory scheme governing parenthood in assisted reproduction cases must be respected, and that the court should be slow to make declarations that would undermine its coherence or purpose.
A central issue was the distinction between regulated and unregulated conception. Where sperm donation takes place through a licensed clinic, the law provides clear rules on legal parenthood, typically excluding the donor from parental status. By contrast, unregulated arrangements can leave parenthood uncertain and open to dispute.
More broadly, the judgment reflects the continuing tension between evolving methods of family creation and a legal framework that remains closely tied to regulation through licensed clinics.