The High Court Family Division, in a judgment of 21 April 2026, considered a declaration of parentage sought by a man who supplied sperm outside the regulated fertility system, affecting families whose child was conceived that way.
Key facts
- Who: Parents, donors and children where conception happened outside a regulated fertility clinic
- From: 21 April 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: RN (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor), Re [2026] EWHC 878 (Fam)
Background
In Re N (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2026] EWHC 878 (Fam), Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, dealt with an application by Robert Albon, who offers a service providing sperm for the conception of children. He sought a declaration under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that he is the father of a child referred to as N. The hearing took place on 21 October 2025 and judgment was handed down on 21 April 2026. Judgment had been reserved to await the Court of Appeal decision in Re J, Re M and Re P (Parental Responsibility) [2026] EWCA Civ 344.
Mr Albon provided sperm on two occasions. He was paid £100 for the first donation, which did not lead to a pregnancy, and was given a £150 Amazon gift card for the second, which did. The child's mother regarded the donation as a business transaction and says there was no agreement that he would have parental rights or any future involvement in the child's life. A person who cannot be the child's father is registered as "father" on the birth certificate.
The question
There was no dispute that Mr Albon is N's genetic father and therefore, as the judgment records, legally N's father under the common law. The application was contested by N's mother and by the children's guardian appointed by the court to represent N's interests.
Mr Albon also sought a declaration that the person registered as father is not N's parent. That person did not consent but accepted there were no grounds on which to oppose it.
The legal framework
Section 55A of the 1986 Act allows a person to apply for a declaration as to whether or not a named person is the parent of another. Where a child is named, section 55A(5) lets the court refuse to hear the application if it considers that determining it would not be in the child's best interests.
Under section 58(1), where the truth of the proposition to be declared is proved to the court's satisfaction, the court must make the declaration unless doing so would manifestly be contrary to public policy. Those opposing the application relied on both provisions.
The judgment also refers to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts 1990 and 2008. Under them, a man who gives the required consent to his sperm being used for treatment services is not treated as the father of the child. The arrangements in this case were made entirely outside that scheme, but the court noted that the scheme shows the strict limits Parliament has placed around artificial insemination treatment in regulated clinics.
What this means for families affected by unregulated donation
Legal parentage where a child is conceived outside a regulated clinic is a matter the High Court can be asked to decide by way of a declaration under the Family Law Act 1986. The court's powers include refusing to hear an application on welfare grounds and declining a declaration on public policy grounds.
Anyone involved in a dispute of this kind should read the full judgment and take legal advice on their own circumstances, particularly before any court deadline passes.
Sources
- RN (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor), Re [2026] EWHC 878 (Fam), High Court Family Division, 21 April 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/878