Sperm donor’s parents win the right to see their grandson

THE parents of a sperm donor have won the right to spend time with their four-year-old biological grandson.

In the first case of its kind, the Court of Appeal ruled that encouraging the boy’s relationship with his paternal family would help him understand the ‘big picture of his birth story’.

The child was born to a lesbian couple, one of whom knew the sperm donor from work, Lord Justice Peter Jackson said.

There was no dispute that he was legally their child and, for the first three years of his life, the father had regular contact with the boy.

But after the lesbian couple split and started new relationships – one of them with a man – a dispute over contact developed.

The two women continued to ‘coparent’ the boy and his father’s presence in his life became ‘burdensome and troubling’ to them.

The father, although not a legal parent, objected after the couple started to ‘impose boundaries’, said the judge.

He had no contact with his son for 18 months and when it resumed, his parents – who had also got to know their grandson – were excluded.

A family judge intervened in last June, ordering the couple to let their son see his father seven times a year. The grandparents were also given the right to contact twice a year.

The judge said the child had ‘a lifelong link’ with his paternal family and contact was vital to sustain his ‘sense of identity’.

As he grew up and became more curious about his lineage, he would need ‘a meaningful understanding’ of his father’s place in his life.

‘It’s about him understanding the big picture of his birth story,’ the judge added.

The couple appealed, saying the issue was of ‘real signifihe cance’ to them and that contact between their son and his grandparents was not essential.

But dismissing their case yesterday, Lord Justice Jackson, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Moylan, described the judge’s ruling as ‘admirable’. Although had ‘some sympathy’ with the couple’s stance, he said contact with his grandparents would foster the boy’s welfare.

The judge added: ‘Whatever the state of the relationship between the adults, they once co-operated to create this boy – a much-loved child. They owe it to him to try to recapture something of that spirit.’

Lord Justice Jackson concluded: ‘The outcome of the case has been that the parents have been acknowledged to be his only parents and the role of [the man] and his parents has been defined in a very specific and limited way.

‘Here, both sides unselfishly made compromises in the course of the proceedings, and they must now make the [contact] order work for the boy’s benefit.’

Donors who operate through a licensed fertility clinic have no legal rights or responsibilities to children conceived from their donation.

‘Co-parenting’ agreements, which stipulate the relationship the donor is to have with a child, are sometimes signed at the time of conception but are not legally binding.

In 2013, a landmark High Court case paved the way for donor parents to pursue applications for contact orders.

The court’s Family Division ruled that two men, whose sperm was used by lesbian couples with whom they were friends, could apply through the courts for contact.

‘They created a much-loved child’