Judge rejects challenge by unregulated sperm donor to local authority proposals in care proceedings
The Family Court has rejected a challenge by an unregulated sperm donor said to have fathered more than 180 around the world over proposals made by local authorities in two sets of care proceedings.
Mr Justice Poole was considering care plans for CA and CB, who are both donor-conceived children with a common father in Robert Albon.
CA is a girl born in 2023. Her mother is MA. She has a maternal half-brother, CZ.
CB is a girl born in 2022. Her mother is MB. She has a maternal half-brother, CX.
Albon – 54, who goes by the pseudonym “Joe Donor” – has been a sperm donor for around 12 years and claims to have fathered more than 180 children.
Care proceedings were brought by the respective local authorities in relation to CA and CB and their elder brothers.
In CA’s case, the relevant council and CA's Guardian agreed that a child arrangements order (CAO) should be made, with a Family Assistance Order to provide support to MA and with very limited indirect contact with Albon by way of written contributions to a memory box. MA supported that proposal.
In CB’s case, the second council and the guardian for CB and CX agreed that care orders and placement orders should be made in respect of both children with a view to their being separately adopted or, if adoption placements cannot be found, separately placed in long-term foster care.
The proposal was for letter box parental contact after adoption or long-term fostering, and limited direct contact with the maternal grandmother and maternal half-siblings. Their mother, MB, did not oppose but did not agree to such orders being made.
Each local authority’s proposals in the respective care proceedings were unchallenged except by Albon, Mr Justice Poole said.
Albon does not appear as CA’s father on her birth certificate and does not have parental responsibility for her. He does appear as father on CB’s birth certificate, and has parental responsibility for her.
Albon did not oppose the proposal that CA should live with her mother, but sought a declaration of parentage of CA, an order giving him parental responsibility for CA, and a Time With Order as part of the CAO that includes face-to-face time, alternatively more extensive indirect contact than the local authority proposed.
In CB’s case, meanwhile, Albon opposed the making of a placement order in respect of CB and sought an order that she be placed in his care. Alternatively, he sought more extensive post-adoption contact with CB if a placement order was made in respect of her.
Poole J noted that Albon has been involved in other family proceedings concerning a donor-conceived child of his (A v B [2023] EWFC 333). The judge said he was also due to conduct a final hearing in a separate private law case where Albon is seeking a declaration of parentage and a Time With Order of another donor-conceived child.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Poole set out Albon’s known involvement with different families within this jurisdiction, family by family in order of first contact with him.
Poole J declared that Albon is CA's father, but stopped short of granting him parental responsibility.
The judge said: “I understand the reservations about Mr Albon’s name appearing on CA’s re-registered birth certificate as will almost inevitably follow a declaration of parentage. As HHJ Furness KC observed [in A v B], many people upon being shown the re-registered birth certificate may assume that Mr Albon has parental responsibility whereas re-registration does not confer that on the father.
“There being no apparent means of entering a caveat or notice on the certificate itself, I shall make an order that accurate information by way of a short statement which I shall append to my order, shall be provided to healthcare providers, schools and other bodies or authorities with whom CA is registered, and whenever her birth certificate is relied upon by MA or Mr Albon.”
Mr Justice Poole described Albon's application for parental responsibility as "very narrow". Albon had told the court that his primary concern was that in the event of future litigation, such as care proceedings involving CA, he should not be shut out.
The court heard that he was content not to be involved in decision-making about CA's health or schooling.
On this point, the judge said he did not regard it as appropriate to grant parental responsibility solely for the purpose of ensuring Albon becomes engaged in any future proceedings.
He said: "His parentage will be known and on record and so he will be given notice of any future care proceedings in any event.
"He does not truly seek to commit to CA in a way that would be consistent with the acquisition of parental responsibility."
He also found that, taking into account all the circumstances, it would be detrimental to CA's welfare to confer parental responsibility on Albon.
The judge then turned to whether an order should be made that CA spend time with Albon.
He concluded that it would be in CA's best interests that there be no direct, face-to-face time between CA and Albon and no indirect telephone or video contact between them.
Contact between Albon and CA should instead be restricted to one way, annual communication by letter or card from Albon to MA to hold those communications for CA to have access to as and when MA considers appropriate, the judge said.
Mr Justice Poole then made a six-month family assistance order, calling on the council to offer advice to MA on how to handle the communications from Albon and how to inform CA of her origins.
Elsewhere, the judge said that he had found Albon's motives for or litigating in relation to "certain of his donor-conceived children are related to his immigration status and control, not to the best interests of the children".
Similar findings were previously made by HHJ Furness KC.
Mr Justice Poole barred Albon from making further applications for a period of five years in respect of CA and MA under Section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989
The judge meanwhile approved the council's care plans for CB and CX, noting that: "MB does not seek pre-or post-adoption contact with either child save for letter box contact twice a year but she will be offered appropriate support.
"In the event of long-term foster care then face to face contact will be offered to MB and the care plans provide for post adoption and post-long term fostering face to face contact with the maternal grandmother and maternal siblings.”
Mr Justice Poole added: "The plan does not include any ongoing face to face contact between CB and Mr Albon after adoption or long-term fostering but letterbox contact twice a year only.
"MB does not consent to adoption for CB and CX and Mr Albon, as CB's father does not consent to her adoption. CX's father cannot be traced. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that in the children's best interests I should dispense with parental consent."
Adam Carey
