A family court judge has named a sperm donor after finding it in the public interest to do so to help ‘vulnerable women who are interested in such services…fully understand the risks of becoming involved with him’.
Robert Charles Albon, who offers sperm donation under the pseudonym Joe Donor, has been named in A v B & Ors. His Honour Judge Jonathan Furness KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said naming him ‘does infringe his Article 8 rights to privacy and family life’ but he had chosen to ‘diminish that protection’ when he spoke to the press ‘to advertise his services’.
The judge added: ‘Any infringement of those rights is in my judgment legitimate, necessary and proportionate in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’
B, C and the guardian made an application for the publication of the judgment and for Albon, referred to as A in the judgment, to be named.
The judgment centres on a number of applications including a child arrangements order made by Albon in which he sought parental responsibility, changes to D’s names as well as contact with D and Albon’s name placed on the birth certificate.
Albon, who claimed in a Daily Mail article published in 2023 that he had 170 children and no current intention of stopping his activities, opposed any publication of his name or pseudonym – Joe Donor. The judgment noted Albon was ‘concerned’ it would affect his ability to make applications to spend time with his other children, create a risk D is identified and his Article 8 rights would be infringed.
Read more
Deciding to allow the application and name Albon, the judge said: ‘A is a sperm donor who has advertised his services on the basis that he will allow the mother to make decisions about whether he sees the child and yet in this case he has ignored that position and pursued contact, parental responsibility, a declaration of parentage and a change of name for over two years in a manner which is rightly described by C as a "nightmare".
‘The public, and vulnerable women seeking to get pregnant, should know that is the case and they risk a similar "horror story". There is a clear public interest in naming A as "Joe Donor".’
There was a public interest in naming A ‘in order to protect women from the potential consequences of unregulated sperm donorship, generally, but also from Joe Donor himself’, the judge added.
‘The reality, in my judgment, is that his opposition to being named has little to do with any concern about his children discovering details about him but is actually about him not wanting the mothers of his children and others to know about my findings in this case.’
