What makes it even worse is that this is in the High Court and it is Sir Andrew McFarlane (President of the Family Division) who said it.
This case involves a sperm donor and a trans-identifying woman who was recorded as the father on the child's birth certificate.
The whole case is about the sperm donor rather then the purported 'father', so this is just a side issue. But even so, the casual use of language like this still comes across as jarring to me.
In the quote below, just remember that EF is a trans-identifying woman:
2 There is a separate issue arising from the fact that an individual, EF, who cannot be N’s father, is registered as ‘father’ on N’s birth certificate. Mr Albon seeks a declaration of non-parentage with respect to EF. EF does not consent to the making of such a declaration, but accepts that he has no grounds on which to oppose it.
3 In 2019 N’s mother, Ms JE [random initials], began a romantic relationship with EF [random initials], a cisgender woman (having been assigned the female gender at birth) who was, at that time, still identifying as female.
4 About one year into their relationship EF began identifying as transgender. Ms JE supported EF’s decision to transition to the male gender. EF changed his forename and pronouns to male and began taking testosterone. By that time Ms JE was forming the view that she would like to have a child of her own. EF conducted some research and identified Mr Albon as a possible sperm donor...Ms JE regarded the donation of sperm as being a business transaction and nothing more.
5 Ms JE and EF registered N’s birth, with EF being registered as ‘father’ on N’s birth certificate. At that time, the couple both knew that conception had been achieved using Mr Albon’s sperm. The false declaration to the registrar has been reported to the police, who have apparently decided to take no action.
6 In the spring of 2023, Ms JE and EF separated, leaving Ms JE with the full-time care of N ...
7 In December 2023, Mr Albon applied for a declaration that he is N’s father and that EF is not ...
.
I really am very surprised that language like this is still being used in judgments and it does make me wonder about what attitudes still exist amongst judges.
.
This case ended with the guy who was the sperm donor being refused a declaration of parentage (for various reasons - mostly linked to him treating it as a business) but also there was a declaration that the trans-identifying woman was also not the child's father.
87 By agreement, there will be a declaration that EF is not N’s father.
So now the child is left with no legal father. All very odd indeed.
.
This all comes from a very odd case indeed about an American guy, now living in the UK, who provides a service as an unregulated sperm donor. The judgment was handed down today.
Re N (Paternity: Unregulated Sperm Donor) [2026] EWHC 878 (Fam)
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/878
Basically there is a guy, by the name of Robert Albon, who goes around making his living by providing sperm donations for women who want to conceive. He advertises on various different social media platforms.
He brought a case applying for a declaration that he was the legal father of the child and not the trans-identifying woman.
The High Court said that, since he was involved with, in a business capacity, an activity that was regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 then he should not be recognised as the father of the child on public policy grounds.
The judge differentiated this case from other cases of informal sperm donation due to the quantity (is that the right word?) and the organised businesslike way that he did things.