The Family Court has taken the unusual step of naming an unregulated sperm donor in a judgment on a parentage case.
The Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, publicly named Robert Albon, who calls himself Joe Donor and advertises sperm on Facebook and Instagram, after Mr Albon made a declaration of parentage application.
Mr Albon, 53, who claims to have fathered 180 children, made the application after discovering a couple he had donated sperm to had named the mother’s partner, a transgender man, as the father on the baby’s birth certificate.
In December 2023, Mr Albon applied for a declaration that he was the child’s father. He also sought orders aimed at developing and promoting a relationship with the child through direct contact, although these were not pursued.
The judge dismissed Mr Albon’s application for parental rights “on the ground that to grant it would manifestly be contrary to public policy”.
Sir McFarlane said: “It is necessary to state that the facts of this case are extreme.”
He also explained that the judgment did not mean that all future applications by unregulated sperm donors to be recognised as fathers would be dismissed.
“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,” he said.
In family court cases the naming of participants is highly unusual due to the risk of identification of children. In this case, BBC Wales made a successful application to lift the restriction on naming Mr Albon, claiming it was in the public interest.
Any person who donates sperm at a fertility clinic registered with the HFEA waives legal rights and responsibilities to any children conceived. However, the same rules don’t apply to unlicensed donors.
This is the third judgement from the Family Courts concerning the legal parentage of children involving sperm donated by Mr Albon. He previously applied to be named on the birth certificate of another child and wanted its surname changed to match his. In a separate case, he made an application for custody of two children. Both were refused.
Kingsley Napley Family law partner Connie Atkinson, who advised the mother in this case, said: “On behalf of our client, we are extremely pleased with the court’s decision not to grant a declaration of parentage in Mr Albon’s favour. Whilst he is the biological father, it would not have been appropriate for him to be able to assert himself as a legal parent or to exercise any of the rights that may flow from that.
“This case provides another important lesson for those considering using a sperm donor to conceive. Proper research needs to be undertaken and, if you are not in a position to use a UK licensed clinic (which gives more certainty about legal parentage), advice should be taken about conception and legal parentage and also the likely outcome in the event of a breakdown of any of the relationships involved. Entering into a preconception agreement encourages discussions about a number of practical issues and helps to avoid lengthy, expensive and emotionally draining disputes.”
She added: “As modern family set-ups become ever more prevalent, as a family lawyer I am involved in an increasing number of disputes over parental rights and contact arrangements. Preconception agreements are not legally binding but encourage a dialogue about all intended parents’ hopes and serve as an important record of the parents’ intentions at the time.”
In an interview with Mr Albon published in The Sun newspaper last year, the sperm donor claimed to have met 60 of the 180 children he has fathered. He charges approximately £100 per donation, paid via Amazon gift cards or cash.
Clare Ettinghausen, director of strategy and corporate affairs at the HFEA, said: “It’s always safer to have treatment with donor sperm at a HFEA licenced clinic, where there are laws and guidance to protect and support patients and donors. Clinics are required by law to ensure that donors, patients, and any future children are protected by carrying out rigorous health tests, ensuring legal parenthood consents are in place, and offering everyone involved counselling to ensure they are completely informed and comfortable with their decision.
“Licensed clinics are also expected to adhere to the ‘10-family limit’, which restricts the number of families that can be created with a single donor through fertility treatment in the UK. The reason we set limits on the number of families a donor can help create is that we know through consultation this is the level that donors and donor-conceived people feel comfortable with in terms of the numbers of potential donor-conceived children, half-siblings and families that might be created.”
Molly Harris, associate in the family team at Birketts LLP, said: “This decision is a clear and principled application of the public policy safeguards within the Family Law Act 1986 and provides authoritative guidance on the interaction between truthful determination of parentage, child welfare, and public policy in cases involving unregulated sperm donation.
“While the courts rightly place significant weight on the accurate recognition of legal parentage, Sir Andrew McFarlane’s judgment underscores that this principle is not absolute. Where recognising paternity would effectively legitimise a prolific, unregulated and unlawful sperm donation operation – particularly one shown to exploit vulnerable women – the court is entitled, and indeed required, to draw a firm line.”
She added: “The judgment provides important guidance for those navigating informal conception arrangements outside of the scope of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. It has drawn an important distinction between private, informal arrangements and large‑scale, unregulated sperm donation carried out contrary to the fertility regulatory framework. The case underlines the risks of informal arrangements and reinforces the importance of regulated fertility pathways.”
