A sperm donor who has fathered 30 children has been ordered to pay maintenance after he made a woman he met through an unofficial website pregnant and a judge ruled he is the biological father.
The donor, identified only as Mr. F, was ordered to pay the bulk of the £300,000 legal costs after fighting the mother’s claim that the two-year-old child was born by natural intercourse and not artificial insemination as he claimed.
He is also liable for maintenance payments as the child grows up.
Family Division Judge Mr. Justice Peter Jackson told the High Court today that
Mr. F’s relationship with the mother – known as Ms. M – “developed into an intense extramarital affair”.
He also commented that the case and unlicensed websites offering sperm donors “amply demonstrates the risks involved for all participants in this process.”
Ms. M claims she received an e-mail from a woman which told her that Mr. F “uses his donor status to get women into bed.”
And the judge spoke of Mr F’s “calculating betrayal of his girlfriends, to whom he made promises that he was no longer engaging in sperm donation, and his unabashed dishonesty in concealing his overall activities from recipients with whom he entered into relationships.”
Mr F, who has fathered 30 children, was said to have been motivated by a desire “to meet his own needs at least at a sexual level” in his website activity.
Mr. F had been a licensed clinic donor since 2000 and registered on a website in 2003, offering his services as an unpaid sperm donor either by artificial insemination or natural intercourse.
Ms. M and her husband Mr. H married in 2008 but were told the chance of having a baby were low on account of the fact that her husband had had a vasectomy and was 30 years older.
In March 2010 the couple met donor Mr. F in a café, but the husband was unhappy with the plans.
The court was told how Ms. M and the donor then began a sexual relationship, and after having one pregnancy terminated, she became pregnant again and had the baby in June 2011.
The birth will now be re-registered with Mr. F as the father. How much he will have to pay to support his child is to be decided later.
The judge added: “Although he has played no part in the child’s life, Mr. F now wishes his name to appear on the birth certificate and would like to have parental responsibility.
“Ms. M does not agree to that at this stage, but is willing to discuss contact and reconsider in the light of events. If Mr. F wishes to apply for parental responsibility in the future, it is open for him to do so.”
SOURCE: The Telegraph