One man, 180 children – and the paternity case that shocked Britain

If you want to get a sense of what can happen when private sperm donation goes very, very wrong, look no further than the warning from a judge that emerged this week over a man claiming to have fathered 180 children.

Judge Jonathan Furness made the unusual decision to name a man involved in a family court case, saying it was in the public interest to do so. And he issued a rare warning of the dangers of unregulated private sperm donation to protect other women from the same fate.

The case came to light after Robert Charles Albon, who advertises himself online under the pseudonym “Joe Donor”, took a same-sex couple to court in an attempt to secure parental rights over their child. He also applied to be named as the father on the birth certificate – and even tried to change the child’s name, despite previously advertising that he would “leave it up to the mother as to whether there should be any contact”.

Cardiff Crown Court heard that the baby had been conceived by syringe injection – but Albon later launched a two-year legal battle to have rights over the child and wanted the non-biological mother to be called “Auntie”, despite the fact she had acted as a parent since the child’s birth.

The judge described Albon as man “who has a complete absence of sensitivity or empathy, is wholly self-centred and will stop at nothing to obtain what he wants” and said women and children appeared to a “commodity” to him as he sets about increasing the number of his children around the globe: “China, USA, Argentina, Australia and UK to name just some of the countries where he has fathered children.”

And Furness said he wanted to safeguard women not only from from using Albon’s “services” – but from the potentially risky repercussions of unregulated sperm donation right here in the UK.

The case reveals a “wild west” of private and unregulated sperm donation in Britain – and proves that our laws need to go much further to protect those who resort to using unlisted donors.

So, how exactly does this happen?

The UK government website stipulates: “If you donate sperm through a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) licensed clinic, you will not: be the legal parent of any child born, have any legal obligation to any child born, have any rights over how the child will be brought up, be asked to support the child financially, be named on the birth certificate”. But it also says: “If you use an unlicensed clinic to donate sperm, you will be the legal father of any child born from your donation under UK law.”

Another key distinction to draw between dipping your toe in the clandestine world of unregulated sperm donation and going down the legitimate route are the lack of compulsory health checks involved in the former. The donor could pass on a genetic disease or a sexually transmitted infection. Some online sperm donors hide their true identity, which poses obvious risks, particularly when it comes to background checks. In licensed clinics, sperm from one donor can only be used to create a maximum of 10 families – which is important for many reasons, but also because some sperm donors are motivated by altruism, while others may be motivated by egotism.

But the case has also exposed how little protection those who use unregulated sperm donors have in the eyes of the law. Current systems mean parents are vulnerable to being exploited, abused and coerced via the courts – with urgent reform needed to tackle this problem. Aysel Akhundova, a lawyer who specialises in children's law, says that the case “emphasises the necessity for clearer regulations and greater awareness to protect individuals from exploitation, ensuring the integrity and stability of the families they aspire to create.”

She also warns this case is likely “just the tip of the iceberg” with many sperm donors “flying under the radar and preying on vulnerable individuals who are desperate to have children”. Women using unregulated sperm donors often have no access to legal advice and are oblivious to the dangers involved. Legal loopholes should be closed. Akhundova believes that the lack of regulation could result in parents not allowing access to known sperm donors – even when they may want to – because they are worried that this will open the door to the possibility of being taken to court.

So why do those who choose unregulated sperm donors have so little legal protection? Throughout my work in this area, I’m left believing it has much to do with the sense of taboo that continues to shroud sperm and egg donation – as well as surrogacy and fertility struggles in general.

Sperm donation remains hidden, joked about and stigmatised. Generations ago, parents were advised by doctors not to tell their child there was a donor involved – and there is still no legal obligation to tell their child how they were conceived. How many people are currently living in the UK with no idea they were fathered by a donor?

In October 2023, new laws came into force meaning that individuals born using an egg or sperm donor and who turn 18 from that point on will be able to learn who their donor is – but only if their parent tells them.

The laws surrounding egg and sperm donation must be overhauled to protect people better. Those who are conceived by donor should have a legal right to know about their biological roots – and those who go down the unregulated route need legal protections to ensure they aren't dragged to court by donors seeking parental responsibility. But most vital of all is awareness of the risks of using unregulated sperm donors in the first place.