RN (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor), Re

Under Family Law Act 1986, s 55A(5), the court may refuse to hear a parentage application only where determining it would not be in the child’s best interests. The question concerns the determination of the application, not whether the declaration would positively promote welfare. The assessment is proportionality-based, with a strong default in favour of determining parentage accurately and preserving access to justice.

Under s 58(1), the court must make the declaration once parentage is proved unless doing so would be manifestly contrary to public policy. Unlicensed, extensive and commercial processing and distribution of sperm, contrary to the statutory regulatory scheme, may meet that high threshold. The result depends on the facts; informal single-donor arrangements are not automatically excluded.

Robert Albon applied under Part III of the Family Law Act 1986 for declarations that he was the father of N and that EF, who was recorded as father on N’s birth certificate, was not N’s father. It was accepted that Mr Albon was N’s genetic and legal father at common law, and that EF was not the biological father.

The application was opposed by N’s mother and the child’s guardian. The central issues were whether the court should refuse to hear the application under s 55A(5), and, if it heard it and parentage were proved, whether making the declaration would be manifestly contrary to public policy under s 58(1), having regard to Mr Albon’s extensive unregulated sperm-donor activities.

1. Application for declaration of paternity dismissed. Although Mr Albon’s paternity was proved, making the declaration would be manifestly contrary to public policy. A declaration that EF was not N’s father was made by agreement.
2. Section 55A(5) concerns whether determining the application itself would not be in the child’s best interests. It is not a decision whether declaring the applicant to be a parent would positively promote welfare. The court adopted the distinction drawn in Re CA (Children of Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2025] EWFC 130 and the gateway considerations identified in Re A & B (Declaration of Non-parentage) [2025] EWFC 41: the child’s ascertainable views; likely harm from considering the application; likely deleterious consequences if the application were granted; and the effect on the family members’ Article 8 rights.
3. The default position is that an application should proceed to determination. The court should avoid importing labels such as “high” or “exceptional” where Parliament has used no such wording. The assessment is one of proportionality, taking account of the importance of establishing parentage accurately and access to justice. The risks posed by a difficult parent, and the possible effect on a vulnerable sole carer, did not justify refusing to determine the application in this case.
4. Sections 55A(5) and 58(1) operate at separate stages and must not be conflated. Section 58(1) imposes a stronger default in favour of making the declaration once the truth is proved. The court applied the status principles explained in Re S (A Child) (Declaration of Parentage) [2012] EWCA Civ 1160, including the public importance of accurate parentage records.
5. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, s 2, producing and passing a sperm donation to a recipient constituted processing and distribution. Section 4(1A) made those activities unlawful without a licence or third-party agreement. The statutory scheme’s tight controls, including limits on donor-created families and the exclusion of regulated donors from legal parenthood, demonstrated a clear public policy. The court adopted the unchallenged findings in Re CA (Children of Unregulated Sperm Donor) concerning Mr Albon’s business, scale of activity, lack of screening and risks to recipients and children.
6. The facts were extreme and concerned sustained, extensive and unregulated activity. The decision did not mean that every declaration application arising from an informal or single sperm-donor arrangement would fail under s 58(1).