Sperm Donor Ordered To Pay £300,000

                          

Sperm donor ordered to pay £300,000 after affair with client he met on a website where he said he was available for 'breeding parties'.


A prolific sperm donor who claims he has fathered more than 30 children used his fertility to get women into bed and must now pay £300,000 costs after a paternity row with a client turned love

In a landmark ruling today a judge found the man, known only as Mr F, was the legal parent of a two-year-old boy conceived after a series of trysts with a woman he met on the internet.

The sperm donor was so keen to make babies he advertised a 'breeding party - a male-dominated orgy designed to get a woman pregnant' online, the High Court was told.

Mr F had used an internet site for licensed sperm donors to 'meet his own needs' and also 'engaged in sexual activity with both members of a lesbian pair who had approached him via the website', said Mr. Justice Peter Jackson.

The woman at the centre of this High Court claim said their affair launched after they met on the internet and involved '15 days of sex' but Mr F maintained it was '15 donations by artificial insemination'.  Registered sperm donors are afforded legal protection in these circumstances.

But the judge decided he had an affair and the mother, Ms M, who is now divorced from her husband Mr. H, has successfully won a court battle to get him to pay his way.

'I am clear that in relation to his website activity his mainspring has been to meet his own needs, at least at a sexual level,' the judge said.

Mr Justice Jackson ordered Mr F to pay the bulk of the £300,000 legal costs in fighting the woman's claim.

'His prolific sexual activity with recipients amounted to a brazen flouting of the rules of the website, such as they were,' he said.

'In one relevant period of two to three months alone, he was on his own account having sex with three women and providing artificial insemination to two others. Most of these contacts had to be kept secret from the other women involved.

'The sheer logistical challenge alongside his professional life will have been a burden that he would have been likely to have laid down if he had not been driven on by some degree of compulsion.'

Mr F will also become liable for maintenance payments for the child as it grows up, which will be decided at a later hearing.

In the complicated case both parents were called 'untruthful, devious and manipulative' by the sitting judge.

The court heard how Mr F was licensed clinic donor since 2000 and registered on an internet website since 2003 offering his services as an unpaid sperm donor either by artificial insemination or natural intercourse.

In 2004 Ms M and Mr H, who is 30 years older than her, were told the chances of them having a baby were 'pretty grim.' because he had had a vasectomy. Six years later after contacting him online, the couple met with the donor in a cafe, which kick-started sexual relations between them.

In May 2010 she spent a weekend at Mr F's flat where she claimed they had sex. He denied it and said only artificial insemination took place but she became pregnant and when she told her husband he took her to a clinic where it was terminated, the court was told. She told Mr F she had miscarried.

She continued to see Mr F and according to her they had sex on a number of occasions.

He claimed the first time they had sex was at the end of October but this was inaccurate because she was already pregnant then and the baby was born in June 2011.

But after the baby was born they split up and she accused him of rape, but the police after interviewing them, took no action.

Ms M then claimed she received an e-mail from a woman which told her that Mr F 'uses his donor status to get women into bed.'

After a DNA test proved he was the father the pair headed to court to decide whether the pregnancy was by artificial insemination or sex, with the judge deciding it was through intercourse.

And in a damning judgment Justice Jackson called the former lovers liars and backed the scorned husband 'who was powerless in the face of what developed into an intense extramarital affair.'

'On the strength off facts that they admit, they are both individuals that have over long periods of time been untruthful, devious and manipulative,' he said.

'I regret that they both lied extensively throughout their evidence, and one of them was of course lying about the central issue of the child's conception'.

Ms M was an 'unimpressive' witness, he said, who showed no sign of discomfort when 'caught in an obvious lie. 'She freely stated that she was motivated by her own need for Mr. F to be punished. But he accepted her story that it was after they had full sex that she became pregnant.   

As for Mr. F the judge spoke of 'his calculating betrayal of his girlfriends, to whom he made promises that he was no longer engaging in sperm donation, and his unabashed dishonesty in concealing his overall activities from recipients with whom he entered into relationships.'   

He as also guilty of 'casual untruthfulness' about the number of children he had fathered and 'lies that would only work to his benefit by disguising a level of hyperactivity that might have deterred responsible approaches.'

The judge said he told the truth where possible and lied where necessary. He ruled that sexual intercourse took place on the mother's evidence on all occasions they met bar the first.

He said it should not be forgotten that 'however difficult or unsatisfactory the circumstances of conception may have been a child - as here - has been born.'

The birth will now be re-registered with Mr. F as the father . How much he will have to pay to support his child will be decided later.

He ordered Mr. F to pay his own legal costs of £200,000, the husband's costs of £13,000 and the £61,000 legal aid costs of the mother. She must pay the £20,000 costs she incurred before getting legal aid because of her own misconduct, the judge said.





Dailymail