The Supreme Court has ruled that a sperm donor and natural father should not be appointed guardian of his child, but should not be denied all access to the child.
The child, identified only as H.L., was being raised by her mother, P.L., and her mother’s female partner, B.M. The couple had undergone a civil union ceremony in England. The natural father, J. McD, had agreed before the child’s birth that his role would resemble that of a “favourite uncle”, rather than a parent.
The relationship between the adults later deteriorated. The court found that J. McD had gone beyond the agreed role after the birth and had begun asserting paternal rights. Tensions increased further when the respondents planned an extended stay in Australia.
The High Court had refused both guardianship and access. On appeal, Mr Justice Geoghegan agreed that guardianship should still be refused. He said the original arrangement was an important factor and that introducing an additional parental role could be disruptive to the child’s settled family life.
However, the Supreme Court took a different view on access. Mr Justice Geoghegan rejected an inference drawn in the High Court that J. McD had deceived the respondents from the outset about his intentions. He considered that the father had acted in good faith when entering the original arrangement, even though he later breached aspects of it.
The court stressed that the biological link between father and child was relevant, but not decisive. The governing question was what arrangement best served the child’s welfare.
The appeal was therefore dismissed on guardianship but allowed on access. The case was returned to the High Court to regulate limited contact, with the judge suggesting that mediation or another effort to reach agreement should be attempted first.
The ruling did not fix the precise access arrangements and left open the possibility of a future guardianship application if circumstances changed.