Man mixed father’s sperm with his own to help partner conceive

A MAN who mixed his sperm with that of his father to help impregnate his partner will not have to have a paternity test, the High Court has ruled.

After experiencing fertility problems and being unable to afford IVF treatment, the man, known as PQ, and his then-partner, JK, agreed to mix his sperm with his father’s and attempt to conceive with it, a hearing was told last month.

Mr Justice Poole was told that the arrangement was “always intended” to be kept secret and resulted in the birth of a now five-year-old boy, known as D. However, after Barnsley council was informed about the circumstances of the conception in separate proceedings, it brought a legal challenge over the parentage of the child.

The council asked the High Court in Sheffield to order DNA tests to determine whether the man was D’s father.

But in a judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Poole dismissed the case, finding t he council had “no st ake in t he outcome”. He said the family had “created a welfare minefield”, adding: “I cannot believe that JK, PQ and [ his father] RS properly thought through the ramifications of their scheme for JK to become pregnant, otherwise it is unl i kely t hat t hey would have embarked upon it.”

He sa id t he boy “is a unique child who would not exist but for the unusual arrangements made for his conception, but those arrangements have also created the potential for him to suffer emotional harm were he to learn of them”.

Mr Justice Poole said the man had an established father-and-son relationship with the child and it was up to him and the boy’s mother to “manage the latent risks to his welfare”. He added: “It must be acknowledged t hat t he circumstances of D’s conception cannot now be undone.

“Without testing, his biological paternity remains uncertain but there is a strong chance, to say the least, that the person he thinks is his grandfather is his biological father, and that the person he thinks is his father is his biologi cal half-brother.” Dismissing t he council’s bid, the judge said the body does not have parental responsibility or a “personal interest” in the boy’s biological parentage.

He said: “It may wish to know who is D’s biological father, but it has no stake in the outcome of its application.

“A wish to uphold the public interest i n maintaining accurate records of births does not confer a personal interest in the determination of such an application.”

Mr Justice Poole concluded that the family may wish to undergo a paternity test to tell the child at a later date “but that is a matter for them”.

‘The arrangements for the conception have created the potential for the child to suffer emotional harm’