Sperm donor wins custody of boy over his birth mother and her lesbian partner in landmark court case

A sperm donor has won parental rights over a lesbian birth mother's only child in a landmark case.

The ruling was handed down in June by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia which denied the mother's parental responsibility for the nine-year-old. 

The court instead ruled in favour of her former partner and their sperm donor.

The custody battle has lasted for almost five years between the three adults, costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs, The Herald Sun reported. 

The boy was conceived via IVF and the female couple chose donor eggs and donor sperm.

But all parties were known to each other - the eggs were donated by a mutual friend of the birth mother and her then-partner, while the sperm donation was by a man the boy refers to as 'Daddy'. 

The sperm donor met the boy when he was born and has continued to spend time with him regularly, which has included overnight stays.

The man has always maintained he only ever agreed to donate his sperm if there was a condition that he would always be involved in his son's life. 

But the biological father was never listed on the birth certificate, with the birth mother claiming he had waived his rights to any formal parental duty. 

When the two mothers broke up and started living apart, it triggered the messy custody battle.

Over the last five years, the nine-year-old has spent time with each mother as well as time with the sperm donor.

The trial judge ruled that just characterising the father 'as a sperm donor' and not a person who is concerned about the boy's 'welfare and development' would be ignoring the facts of the case.

'This lead to the conclusion that (the sperm donor) is indeed in practical terms a parent of (the boy) within the ordinary meaning of the word,' they said.

'The evidence unequivocally supports that (the sperm donor) has provided support and care to (the boy) since the time of his birth and will continue doing so.

'(The mothers) do not enjoy any superiority over any other person keenly interested in (the boy's) welfare, namely (the sperm donor).' 

The birth mother, who lost her parental rights, had wanted sole responsibility of the child. 

But the birth mother's ex-partner, who had turned her life around following the breakup, fought for shared responsibility with the sperm donor.

The boy had his own independent legal counsel who put forward that either shared responsibility among the three adults or sole custody given to his sperm donor dad would best suit the boy's needs.

The judge said it was in the nine-year-old's best interest to make orders that would minimise the risk of further court proceedings.

The judge said he believed this meant giving shared responsibility between the birth mother's ex-partner and the sperm donor father, leaving the birth mother out entirely.

'Irrespective of whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies or is rebutted, I am satisfied that it is not in [the boy's] best interests for all three to share parental responsibility for him,' the judge ruled. 

'[The boy] is a child who has medical and health needs, and requires support. It is imperative that major long-term decisions in relation to these issues are made without delay and to the best standards.

'It is in the hands of the parents whether (the boy) can ­finally cease being caught in the middle of them litigating about him.'

The birth mother wanted to appeal the decision but was told there was no point, the Herald Sun reported.

In 2019 the majority of the High Court ruled s sperm donor was legal father of a child because he had always been involved in her life.