- The man and his then-partner had agreed to mix his own sperm with his father’s
A man who mixed his sperm with his father’s to help his partner get pregnant will not have to have a paternity test after winning a High Court battle with the council.
Mr Justice Poole did concede, however, that there was a ‘strong chance’ the man the child thinks is his grandfather could in fact be his biological father – which would mean the person he thinks is his father would actually be his half-brother.
The man, known as PQ, and his then-partner, JK, agreed to mix his sperm with his father’s and inject it into the woman after facing fertility problems and struggling to afford IVF treatment.
The judge was told that the arrangement was ‘always intended’ to be kept secret and has led to the birth of a now five-year-old boy, known as D.
When Barnsley Council caught wind of the ‘unusual’ and ‘unique’ conception in separate proceedings, it brought a legal bid over the parentage of the child.
The council asked the High Court in Sheffield to direct DNA tests that should be carried out to determine whether the man was D’s father.
But in a judgment today, Mr Justice Poole dismissed the bid and ruled that the council had ‘no stake in the outcome’.
A man who mixed his sperm with his father’s to help his partner get pregnant will not have to have a paternity test after winning a High Court battle with his council. (File image)
The council asked the High Court in Sheffield (pictured) to direct DNA tests that should be carried out to determine whether the man was D’s father. But a judge ruled against the council
He 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’.
‘It must be acknowledged that the circumstances of D’s conception cannot now be undone,’ Mr Justice Poole added.
‘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 biological half-brother.’
The judge 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 unlikely that they would have embarked upon it.’
He continued that the 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 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’. (File image of DNA test)
Dismissing the 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 in 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’.
