SAB (A Child), Re

In disputes about a child’s relationship with a genetically related parent, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. Parental autonomy does not entitle existing carers alone to determine whether contact should occur. Such cases are highly fact specific. Even a person who agreed to act as a non-anonymous sperm donor is not necessarily excluded from the child’s life. Contact may be ordered where the parent can contribute positively to the child’s upbringing and no sufficiently established risk of harm justifies exclusion.

The application concerned contact between DB, the genetic father of SAB, and SAB, a child aged about 20 months. SAB was cared for by his genetic mother, AB, and her civil partner, CB, who also had parental responsibility. Contact had initially taken place voluntarily and amicably, but had broken down following increasing conflict between the adults. AB and CB opposed further contact, contending that DB had agreed to act only as a sperm donor and to withdraw from the child’s life. DB denied that agreement and sought a continuing relationship with SAB. The guardian recommended regular, initially supervised contact. The central issues were the alleged agreement, the effect of parental conflict, and whether contact accorded with SAB’s welfare.

1. Contact ordered. The court ordered contact in terms previously considered and read out, accepting the guardian’s recommendation for regular contact, initially supervised. There was no objective evidence that DB posed a risk to SAB or lacked the competence to care for him.
2. The court rejected the contention that DB had agreed merely to be a sperm donor and then to withdraw. On the balance of probabilities, the surrounding circumstances, including DB’s expressed wish to father a child and the subsequent contact after SAB’s birth, were inconsistent with such an agreement.
3. The child’s welfare was the paramount consideration. The case was highly fact specific, and the court did not need to determine the application by relying principally on authority. The likely benefits of SAB knowing his identity and having a relationship with his father outweighed the asserted disadvantages arising from adult conflict.
4. Parental autonomy did not give AB and CB the exclusive right to determine what was best for SAB. Their strong feelings and inability at the time to present DB positively were relevant considerations, but they had to be addressed in the light of SAB’s welfare. The court considered that the difficulties lay between the adults and did not justify excluding DB from SAB’s life.
5. The court observed that, as recognised by Court of Appeal authority, a non-anonymous sperm donor should not necessarily be excluded from the resulting child’s life. The ultimate decision depended on the particular facts and the welfare of the child.