Boy's birth followed complex search for suitable donor

BACKGROUND:THE LITTLE boy at the heart of the case was born in 2006 as a result of a sperm donation, following various efforts over three years by the mother to conceive.

The mother, referred to as P, has lived with another woman since 1996 and they entered into a civil union in London in 2006.

Having decided they wished to have a child, the couple in 2003 signed an agreement with JC, a gay friend of theirs who lived abroad, for him to be a sperm donor. It specified that any child would remain with the couple but would have knowledge of the biological father, who would adopt the role of favourite uncle.

P travelled abroad a number of times in 2003 trying to conceive with JC. After no success, she sought aid from fertility clinics in Ireland but was refused because she was not in a heterosexual relationship. After attending a fertility clinic in London with no success in 2004, she returned to the arrangement with JC in 2005 for a time.

In late 2004, the couple had met another gay man, the appellant, discussed the possibility of his donating sperm, and later gave him a copy of their agreement with JC and a book entitled: It's A Family Affair – The Complete Lesbian Parenting Book.

This man told the couple in March 2005 he no longer wished to be a donor, but in July 2005 said he wished to proceed. In early August 2005, they amended their agreement with JC to insert the man’s name, and he made his first sperm donation that evening.

Some two weeks later, the man was told P was pregnant and the contract was signed after discussions. Its provisions included that the child would know the man was the biological father, but that the couple would be the parents and the man would have no responsibility for or financial obligations to the child, but could visit the child at the couple’s discretion.

After the child was born, the couple claimed the man became intrusive. They became fearful after he sought to see the child once a month and described himself as “a father”. The parties’ relationship deteriorated. The High Court described the relationship between the man and the child’s mother as “poisonous” and between him and the other woman as one of “armed neutrality”.