Man who mixed his sperm with his father's to help his partner conceive will not have to take a paternity test after winning High Court battle with council

A man who mixed his sperm with his father's to help his partner conceive will not have to undergo a paternity test after winning a High Court battle with the council.

However, Judge Poole did admit that there was a 'high probability' that the man the child thinks is his grandfather could in fact be his biological father – which would mean the person he thinks is his father , would actually be his half-brother.

The man, known as PQ, and his then-partner, JK, agreed to mix his sperm with his father's and inject it into the woman after they faced fertility issues and struggled to undergo IVF treatment to pay.

The judge was told the arrangement was 'always intended' to remain secret and led to the birth of a now five-year-old boy, known as D.

When Barnsley Council became aware of the 'unusual' and 'unique' view in separate proceedings, it launched a legal bid over the child's parentage.

The council asked the High Court in Sheffield to order DNA tests to determine whether the man was D's father.

But in a judgment today, Judge Poole rejected the bid, ruling that the council had 'no interest in the outcome'.

The council asked the High Court in Sheffield (pictured) to order DNA tests to determine whether the man was D's father. But a judge ruled against the municipality

He said the man had an established father-and-son relationship with the child and it was up to him and the boy's mother to “manage the latent risks to his well-being.”

“It must be recognized that the circumstances of D's conception cannot now be undone,” Judge Poole added.

“Without testing, his biological paternity remains uncertain, but there is a good chance, to say the least, that the person he thinks is his grandfather is his biological father, and that the person he thinks is his father is his biological half-brother. '

The judge said the family had “created a welfare minefield” and added: “I cannot believe that JK, PQ and (his father) RS have properly thought through the consequences of their plan to get JK pregnant, otherwise it's unlikely they would. have started it.'

He continued that the boy is “a unique child who would not exist without the unusual arrangements made for his conception, but those arrangements also created the potential for him to suffer emotional harm if he were to learn of them.”

Mr Justice Poole concluded that the family may wish to undergo a paternity test to tell the child at a later date 'but that is a matter for them'. (File image of DNA test)

The judge rejected the board's bid, saying the agency has no parental responsibility or “personal interest” in the boy's biological origins.

He said: 'It may want to know who D's biological father is, but it has no interest in the outcome of the application.

“The desire to uphold the public interest in maintaining accurate birth records does not confer any personal interest in the decision on such an application.”

Mr Justice Poole concluded that the family may wish to undergo a paternity test to tell the child at a later date 'but that is a matter for them'.