In Re N (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2026] EWHC 878 (Fam) the then President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, was tasked with determining prolific sperm donor Mr Robert Albon’s (known as Joe Donor) application for another Declaration of Parentage for a child known as ‘N’. There was no dispute that Mr Albon was the child’s biological father or that he was N’s legal father under English common law. However, his application for a Declaration of Parentage was contested by N’s mother and children’s guardian and once again shone a light on the risks of unregulated sperm donation. In dismissing Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage, Sir Andrew McFarlane ruled that it would be manifestly contrary to UK public policy to do so given his extensive unlicensed sperm donation and his indiscriminate and reprehensible behaviour over the last decade.
Background: Child N
Back in 2019, N’s mother (Ms JE) formed a romantic relationship with EF, a cisgender woman (a biological female at birth) who at that time still identified as female. A year into their relationship, EF identified as transgender, changed his forename and pronouns and began to transition to the male gender and take testosterone. JE decided she wanted to have a child and went on to identify Mr Albon as a sperm donor. Mr Albon visited the couple’s home and provided his sperm and was paid £100.00. No pregnancy ensued and so he provided a second sperm donation and was given a £150 Amazon gift card. JE then became pregnant and N was born in autumn 2021. The couple informed Mr Albon of N’s birth and JE was clear that this brought their contact with him to an end and there was no agreement he would have any parental rights or involvement in N’s life. JE considered Mr Albon’s sperm donation as a business transaction.
JE and EF the proceeded to register N’s birth naming EF as ‘father on N’s birth certificate. They did so knowing that this was a false declaration, since N had been conceived with Mr Albon’s sperm. That false declaration to the registrar was reported to the police who decided not to take any action.
In spring 2023, JE and EF ended their relationship and separated. JE was left with N’s full-time care, with EF acting as a father figure for the first 18 months of N’s life.
In December 2023, Mr Albon made an application to the English Family Court that he and not EF was N’s father. He also applied for other orders seeking direct contact to promote a relationship with N, although these were not ultimately pursued leaving just the application for determination of N’s paternity. Mr Albon’s paternity application was heard on 21 October 2025, with judgment reserved.
Mr Albon’s Activities: The Wider Landscape
This case was set against the background of Mr Albon’s prolific and publicised activities as a sperm donor who goes by the name of ‘Joe Donor’. He has appeared in the national media in this country and abroad and claims to have fathered more than 180 children worldwide over the last 12 years. Furthermore, his activities were extensively considered in two previous legal judgments where he had donated his sperm and subsequently sought parental rights and involvement in the lives of the donor conceived children:
- A v B, C and D [2023] EWFC 333 [HHJ Jonathan Furness KC].
- Re CA (Children of Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2025] EWFC 130 [Poole J]
You can read more in our previous blog – Judicial Warning & Naming of Serial Sperm Donor ‘Who Fathered 180 Children’.
You can read more in our previous blog – The Risks Of Unregulated Sperm Donation: Serial Sperm Donor Joe Donor.
HHJ Jonathan Furness KC found that Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage and a child arrangements order in respect of the 2-year old child conceived with his donor sperm were principally motivated to support his UK immigration position. HHJ Jonathan Furness KC determined that Mr Albon was ‘a man who has a complete absence of sensitivity or empathy, is wholly self-centred and will stop at nothing to get what he wants’. He went on to dismiss Mr Albon’s application for parental responsibility and his application to change the child’s name. He also dismissed his application for direct contact with the child, although he granted an indirect contact order. He also ruled that it was not in the child’s interests for the court to determine Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage.
Mr Justice Poole refused Mr Albon’s applications for parental responsibility and direct contact, granting only limited indirect contact and permission to send the child a letter once a year. However, he ruled that it was not contrary to the child’s welfare to hear Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage. As the parties agreed that Mr Albon was the child’s father, Poole J made a Declaration of Parentage in Mr Albon’s favour. Sir Andrew McFarlane proceeded to note Poole J’s highly critical findings that Mr Albon ‘is indiscriminate and will have sex with, or provide sperm to, just about any woman who asks him to do so’. He also highlighted Poole J’s conclusions (paragraph 71):
“I conclude that Mr Albon produces sperm and distributes it as a sole trader for profit. He uses terms such as “expenses” and “opportunity cost” to obscure the fact that sperm donation is, for him, a business…He advertises his services online using cartoon-like imagery and light-hearted terms, whilst at the same time creating the impression that his sperm is tested and packaged in laboratory conditions. He has used images of plastic syringes, a microscope, and a centrifuge machine in promotional material. He refers in such material to “quality controlled sperm”. He told the court that he uses a substance known as an “extender” added to his semen. He is in business and he makes money out of the business. As such, having regard to the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990…, there must be a concern that he ought to have had a licence at least for distributing his sperm in the course of business to aid reproduction”.
Sir Andrew McFarlane further highlighted Mr Justice Poole’s findings about the risks women face in using Mr Albon’s unregulated sperm donor service (paragraph 67):
“The risks they take in using a prolific, unregulated sperm donor who operates as Mr Albon does, are obvious. They do not know anything about the health of his sperm, his genes, his physical or mental health, or his history. Like MA, many will not even know his real name. There is no record of his other children, their mothers, or where they live. There is nothing to prevent Mr Albon seeking declarations of parentage, parental responsibility, or child arrangements orders in respect of the children he fathers”.
Images: Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Legal Context
Sir Andrew McFarlane went on to stress the priority afforded by law to the status of parenthood and accurate recognition of a child’s legal parentage. He explained that the statutory scheme by which the court can make a Declaration of Parentage (and Non-Parentage) are contained in sections 55A and 58 of the Family Law Act 1986 (“FLA 1986”). In determining Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage two statutory provisions were at issue:
- Section 55(5) FLA 1986 which provides power for the court to refuse to hear the application for a Declaration if it would not be in the best interests of the child.
- Section 58(1) FLA 1986 which requires the court to make a Declaration of Parentage ‘unless to do so would manifestly be contrary to public policy’.
Sir Andrew McFarlane ruled that the court’s powers with reference to sections 55(5) and 58)1) FLA 1986 are separate and distinct requiring consideration at two different stages of the process. In relation to section 55(5) FLA the question is whether determining the application for a Declaration of Parentage would not be in the child’s best interests, taking into account:
(i) The children’s views about the application.
(ii) Whether there is evidence that considering the application would likely be harmful to the children.
(iii) Whether the application, if granted, would be likely to have such damaging consequences for the children that the court should not proceed to determine it.
(iv) How determination of the application fits in with the Article 8 ECHR rights of the individual members of the family.
Declaration of Parentage Application
N’s mother (JE) opposed Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage. It was argued that JE was vulnerable and she would be adversely impacted if the Declaration of Parentage was granted. It could leave open potential for Mr Albon to assert in future a claim for involvement in N’s life and his current indication that he would not seek to do so could not be relied upon. This was based upon Mr Justice Poole’s findings that Mr Albon is ‘…a man who has a complete absence of sensitivity or empathy, is wholly self-centred and will stop at nothing to get what he wants’. As a result, JE would be left in a constant state of uncertainty about Mr Albon’s future involvement. Furthermore, JE had been greatly upset by the court process and if the Declaration of Parentage was made it would have a detrimental impact on her care of N and N’s welfare.
It was further argued on behalf of N’s mother that it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to grant Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage given:
(a) The ‘extraordinary number of children’ Mr Albon has fathered.
(b) That Mr Albon is operating a sperm donor service outside the statutory and regulatory scheme set out in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
(c) Mr Albon’s ‘reprehensible conduct’ as identified in the HHJ Furness KC and Poole J’s legal judgments which preys on vulnerable women, which would be endorsed and legitimised if a Declaration of Parentage was made.
Legal arguments were also made on behalf of the children’s guardian against the grant of Mr Albon’s application for a Declaration of Parentage, including that he has sought to ‘step in and step out of the lives of the families to whom he has donated sperm’. Additionally, the guardian’s assessment of Mr Albon was highlighted (Paragraph 57):
‘I was concerned about Mr Albon’s lack of insight in this regard and a complete lack of empathy for the children who result and their parents, all of whom are real humans, not numbers or accomplishments, and who are unlikely to have a full understanding of the wide ranging implications of their circumstances and how many connected half-siblings there are globally.
Mr Albon demonstrated little moral or ethical awareness of the implications of prolific sperm donation, with him being of a clear view he and others like him are doing nothing wrong, it is not criminal, and it will be the onwards responsibility of the children resulting from his donations, to take precautions and steps to avoid the physical (and emotional and psychological) risks associated with consanguinity in their adulthood’.
Counsel for the children’s guardian described Mr Albon as a ‘shape shifter’ who was motivated by self-interest and his immigration status as opposed to the children’s or their mother’s interests. If he was formally named as ‘father’ he could then as of right make applications under the Children Act 1989 and in doing so make N’s mother vulnerable and potentially impact her ability to care for N. Consequently, the guardian would have ‘grave concerns’ for N’s welfare if Mr Albon obtained a Declaration of Parentage as it would open the door to ‘this highly dangerous man’ trying to intrude into N’s future care’. Moreover, it would in this case be ‘manifestly against public policy’ based on Poole J’s findings about Mr Albon for the court to grant him a Declaration of Parentage.
Counsel for the children’s guardian also asserted that Mr Albon was in contravention of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (“HFE Act 1990”) in running a business for the ‘processing’ and ‘distribution’ of sperm and in charging a fee for doing so without a license. Section 2 HFE Act 1990 defines ‘non-medical fertility services’, ‘distribution’ and ‘processing’ of gametes as follows:
‘”Non-medical fertility services” means any services that are provided, in the course of a business, for the purpose of assisting women to carry children, but are not medical, surgical or obstetric services.
“Distribution”, in relation to gametes or embryos intended for human application, means transportation or delivery to any person in or outside the United Kingdom for human application, and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly,
“Processing”, in relation to gametes or embryos intended for human application, means any operation involved in their preparation, manipulation or packaging, and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly”.
Additionally, counsel for the children’s guardian asserted that it is a criminal offence under section 41 HFE Act 1990 to contravene s4(1A). The HFE Act 1990 sets out ‘prohibitions in connection with gametes’:
‘4 (1) No person shall –
(a) store any gametes, or
(b) in the course of providing treatment services for any woman, use –
(i) any sperm, other than partner-donated sperm which has been neither processed nor stored,
(ii) the woman’s eggs after processing or storage, or
(iii) the woman’s eggs after processing or storage, or
(iii) the eggs of any other woman,
except in pursuance of a licence.
(1A) No person shall procure, test, process or distribute any gametes intended for human application except in pursuance of a licence or a third party agreement…’
Furthermore, counsel for the children’s guardian asserted that the court should not condone an individual who acts in breach of the statutory regime and that the case against Mr Albon’s activities is strong and obvious as being manifestly contrary to public policy. Moreover, unregulated assisted reproduction on the scale practised by Mr Albon carries risks for the many children involved and deprives them of the protection put in place by Parliament.
Counsel for Mr Albon argued that Poole J’s findings should not be taken into account and asserted that the court should not be drawn into public policy issues where Parliament had not made the use of unregulated sperm donation unlawful.
In determining the case, Sir Andrew McFarlane ruled that Mr Albon’s actions in visiting N’s home and providing a sperm sample which he passed to her for the purposes of self-insemination is contrary to public policy as established by the HFE Act 1990, ss2 and 4(1A). He further ruled that it would be contrary to public policy for Mr Albon to be treated as N’s father by the court granting him a Declaration of Parentage. Moreover, Mr Albon’s unregulated actions in a wider sense sit outside the statutory regulatory regime. His behaviour is not guided by moral principles or the need for medical and genetic checks and screening to guard against mental or physical health issues. He is indiscriminate in terms of the women to whom he donates his sperm. His service also carries added risks that it attracts vulnerable women who do not want a child welfare assessment, questions asked or accurate record keeping. Added to this, he does not seek to check the history, character or health of the women to whom he donates his sperm or their ability to care for any resulting child. He concluded that (paragraph 85):
“The bar set by s58(1) is a high one, but the clarity of the statutory provisions and the scale on which Mr Albon has operated outside those provisions make it manifest that what he has been doing is contrary to public policy as established by parliament in the HFEA legislation”.
Sir Andrew McFarlane further granted by agreement a Declaration of (Non) Parentage that EF is not N’s father.
Specialist Fertility and Family Law
Once again, this case brings into focus the risks and vulnerability of women, families and children following unregulated sperm donation. The complex legal issues and proceedings in this case highlight the importance of obtaining specialist fertility and family law advice before embarking upon informal conception arrangements with a sperm donor. Specialist fertility and family law advice and representation identifies and safeguards against an inherent range of legal and practical risks and navigates:
- Complex personal and family situations.
- Conception by private sperm donation.
- Regulated sperm donation at a licensed fertility clinic.
- Assisted conception with a known sperm donor, anonymous/identity-release donor or co-parent (e.g. legal parentage, parental rights, birth registration, financial responsibility, risks and dispute mitigation etc).
- Donor conception issues/disputes (e.g. concerning formal DNA/paternity testing, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, fertility fraud, biological and legal parentage and birth certificates).
- Care and upbringing of children following a dispute with a donor, co-parent, an ex-partner or parent (e.g. contact, residence, financial arrangements, parental responsibility, specific issue or prohibited steps).
- Intra-family egg or sperm donation.
- Donor conception and issues arising from impaired fertility/infertility, cancer diagnosis/illness, unsuccessful conception attempts, gender transition, change in personal circumstances, age and later-life parenthood.
- Posthumous conception with the eggs, sperm and embryos of a deceased loved one in fertility treatment with donor conception/surrogacy (e.g. due to illness or accident).
- Legal and wider aspects of international surrogacy or a UK surrogacy arrangement and donor conception.
- Expert witness fertility, surrogacy and donor conception law services.
- Legally clarify and determine an individual’s biological parentage (e.g. seek a formal court order for DNA testing and a Declaration of Parentage).
- Legally determine and recognize an individual’s legal parenthood.
- Rectify an individual’s birth certificate (e.g. add or remove a parent’s name).
- Legally resolve a paternity dispute (i.e. following sperm donation, IVF mix-up, issues with natural conception).
- Legally resolve legal parenthood of a non-birth parent for their child following errors in completion of HFEA consent forms at UK fertility clinics.
- Resolve a dispute about paternity/legal parentage and financial provision for a child or individual.
