A sperm donor in Australia has won a landmark parental rights case involving a boy conceived via IVF with a lesbian birth mother.  

The custody battle centered around the boy, who was conceived using donor eggs and donor sperm from parties that all were known to each other. The eggs were donated by a mutual friend of the birth mother, and the sperm donor was a man who had regular contact with the boy since his birth, including overnight stays, and was referred to the boy as “daddy.” The man claimed he agreed to donate sperm on the condition that he would be involved in the child’s life, according to the Daily Mail.

Despite this arrangement, the biological father was not listed on the birth certificate, and the birth mother claimed he had waived his parental rights. The custody battle began when the birth mother and her female partner split up. Over the past five years, the child has spent time with the birth mother, the biological father, and the birth mother’s former partner.

A trial judge ruled that characterizing the biological father as merely a “sperm donor” was misleading. The judge noted that the man has been actively involved in the boy's life, providing support and care since birth.

“This leads to the conclusion that (the sperm donor) is indeed in practical terms a parent of (the boy) within the ordinary meaning of the word,” the judge 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 birth mother attempted to receive full custody of the child. Her ex-partner also fought for shared custody with the biological father. The child's legal counsel advocated for shared responsibility among all three adults.

However, the judge determined it would be in the best interest of the child for the biological father and the birth mother’s ex-partner to share parental responsibility, excluding the birth mother.

“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.”