The Facts: When Romantic Relationships Complicate Gamete Donation Arrangements
The factual matrix in this case illustrates precisely why clear, formal agreements are essential in artificial fertilisation arrangements, particularly where the parties have a pre-existing intimate relationship. The applicant, a married senior counsel with existing children, and the respondent had maintained an on-and-off romantic relationship spanning over two decades, beginning in 2002.
The versions presented by the parties regarding the nature of their arrangement could hardly be more divergent. The applicant’s case was that around December 2020, the respondent approached him to act as a gamete donor to fulfil her desire to have a child. He contended that his agreement was conditional and clearly communicated through WhatsApp messages on 11 January 2021, with the respondent accepting that he would have no parental responsibilities or financial obligations.
The respondent painted an entirely different picture. Her version was that from 2010, they had been actively trying to conceive a child together as partners in a continuing romantic relationship. She alleged that IVF attempts occurred in 2018 with no mention of gamete donation, and that the applicant’s January 2021 message came “out of the blue.” Crucially, she disputed that her response constituted acceptance of a donor arrangement, describing it instead as arising from frustration after significant emotional and temporal investment in their shared reproductive journey.
What makes this case particularly instructive is the subsequent conduct of the parties. The respondent alleged that the applicant visited the children, formed relationships with them, suggested names and future plans, and paid what she characterised as maintenance rather than mere assistance. The applicant’s response to these detailed allegations was notably confined to “standard blanket denials” without addressing the specific instances of alleged paternal conduct.
The matter was further complicated by the informal nature of the arrangement. Despite being a senior legal practitioner, the applicant failed to reduce any alleged agreement to writing, relying instead on WhatsApp communications and a standard clinic consent form signed under an alias. This procedural oversight would prove fatal to his case, demonstrating that even legal professionals can fall prey to the assumption that informal arrangements will suffice in emotionally charged reproductive contexts.
Section 40(3) of the Children’s Act: Statutory Protection or Escape Route?
The applicant’s entire case hinged on bringing himself within the ambit of section 40(3) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, which provides that no rights, responsibilities, duties or obligations arise between a child born through artificial fertilisation and the gamete donor, except where that person is the birth mother or was married to her at the time of fertilisation.
Von Ludwig AJ’s analysis revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the section’s purpose and scope. The court emphasised that the provision serves as vital protection for genuine gamete donors who enable childless persons to conceive without risk to themselves. However, it was never intended as an escape mechanism for biological fathers seeking to avoid parental responsibilities.
The applicant’s reliance on precedent proved counterproductive. The court distinguished the cases of QG and another v CS and another 2021 ZAGPPHC 366 (17 June 2021) and AV and another v DC and others [2024] ZAGPJHC 626 (26 June 2024), noting that these involved donors seeking inclusion rather than exclusion from parental roles. In the QG case, there was an undisputed formal donor agreement between parties with no romantic history, and the section operated to protect the recipient couple’s family unit. Similarly, in the AV case, the court actually awarded contact and recognised maintenance obligations despite the donor relationship.
The court’s interpretation of EJ and others v Haupt NO [2021] ZAGPPHC 556 (11 August 2021), further reinforced that judicial precedent favoured inclusionary rather than exclusionary approaches to parental rights and responsibilities. These authorities demonstrated that section 40(3) operates within carefully circumscribed parameters, protecting legitimate donation arrangements rather than providing retrospective immunity from parental duties.
Von Ludwig AJ concluded that using the Children’s Act to “protect my rights” over children’s rights fundamentally perverted the legislation’s child-centric purpose. The court recognised that erudite judges had previously established that section 40(3) exists to facilitate artificial fertilisation through donor protection, not to enable biological fathers to abandon their responsibilities to children they participated in creating.
Declaratory Relief and Discretionary Considerations: The Court’s Gatekeeping Role
The procedural framework governing declaratory relief under section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 requires courts to exercise careful discretion when determining existing, future or contingent rights or obligations. Von Ludwig AJ’s analysis demonstrates how courts must scrutinise both the substantive merit and the appropriateness of granting such relief.
The applicant’s approach revealed a fundamental flaw in his litigation strategy. Rather than seeking a determination of whether an agreement existed, he began with the assumption that a valid gamete donor agreement was in place and requested the court to declare it “valid and enforceable.” This procedural misstep proved fatal, as the court noted the “clumsy” wording of the relief sought failed to follow the logical sequence required for success.
The existence of material disputes of fact created additional complications. The respondent’s version was neither improbable nor amounted to mere bald denial, yet the applicant had not sought referral to oral evidence to resolve these factual controversies. The court observed that it could not refer matters to evidence when such relief was not requested, leaving the applicant trapped by his own pleading strategy.
Even assuming the court could overlook these procedural deficiencies, the discretionary analysis proved decisive. Von Ludwig AJ emphasised that courts retain discretion whether to conduct enquiries or make determinations under the section, and the applicant had failed to establish any basis for exercising this discretion favourably.
The court’s gatekeeping function extended beyond mere procedural compliance to substantive justice considerations. The judge recognised that granting the declaratory order would effectively declare the children fatherless, depriving them of benefits inherent in paternal relationships. This outcome would directly contradict the Children’s Act’s stated purposes of promoting family preservation and strengthening, while advancing child protection and wellbeing.
The discretionary analysis ultimately revealed that courts will not exercise their declaratory powers to achieve results that fundamentally undermine the legislative schemes they are asked to interpret, particularly where children’s paramount interests are at stake.
Best Interests of Children: The Paramount Principle in Artificial Fertilisation Disputes
Von Ludwig AJ’s judgment demonstrates how the paramountcy principle operates as an overriding consideration in reproductive disputes, even where statutory provisions might technically support a parent’s position. The Children’s Act 38 of 2005 establishes that children’s interests must be paramount in all child-related matters, creating an interpretive lens through which all other provisions must be viewed.
The court conducted a detailed prejudice analysis, weighing the competing interests of all parties. The effect of granting the declaratory order would render the children legally fatherless, depriving them of financial support, inheritance rights, and the broader benefits flowing from paternal recognition. This outcome was characterised as “gravely prejudicial” to the minor children whose interests the Act prioritises above all others.
In contrast, the respondent would bear the entire financial burden of raising twins in circumstances of acknowledged financial difficulty, creating what the court described as “severe” prejudice. The comparative analysis revealed that any prejudice to the applicant in meeting his support obligations was “negligible” when measured against his status as a highly qualified, employed professional who had voluntarily participated in bringing the children into existence.
The court’s role as Upper Guardian of children created additional obligations to scrutinise relief that would prejudice those under its protection. Von Ludwig AJ noted the inherent contradiction in the applicant’s request that the court apply the Children’s Act to achieve results directly harmful to children, observing that “this cannot be what the legislation intended.”
The judgment reinforced that sections 2(a) and 2(b)(i) of the Children’s Act establish clear legislative purposes including promoting family preservation and strengthening, alongside protecting children’s development and wellbeing. The court refused to exercise its discretion in ways that would undermine these fundamental objectives, recognising that technical legal arguments cannot override the Act’s child-centric philosophy.
This approach ensures that reproductive technology disputes remain grounded in child welfare considerations rather than adult convenience, preventing legislative provisions from being weaponised against the very beneficiaries they were designed to protect.
Practical Lessons for Practitioners: Drafting Enforceable Gamete Donor Agreements
This judgment provides crucial guidance for legal practitioners navigating the complex intersection of reproductive technology and family law. The failure of the applicant’s case, despite his status as senior counsel, offers sobering lessons about the perils of informal arrangements in emotionally charged reproductive contexts.
Practitioners must insist on comprehensive written agreements that explicitly address all contingencies, particularly where parties have pre-existing personal relationships. The clinic’s standard consent form, signed under an alias, proved wholly inadequate to establish the legal relationship the applicant sought to rely upon. Proper agreements should detail the parties’ intentions regarding contact, financial responsibilities, decision-making authority, and the legal status of any resulting children.
The judgment highlights the critical importance of addressing potential conflicts of interest before proceeding. Where romantic relationships exist or have existed between intended donors and recipients, practitioners should carefully consider whether genuine donation arrangements are viable or whether the parties are actually contemplating co-parenting. The court’s scepticism about the authenticity of the donor arrangement underscores this concern.
Documentation strategies must extend beyond the initial agreement to encompass subsequent conduct. The respondent’s detailed allegations about the applicant’s ongoing involvement with the children proved difficult to refute through blanket denials. Practitioners should advise clients about the evidentiary significance of post-conception behaviour and ensure consistency between stated intentions and actual conduct.
From a litigation perspective, the case demonstrates the importance of careful pleading strategies when seeking declaratory relief. Practitioners must structure their cases to address factual disputes systematically rather than assuming contested facts. The court’s analysis reveals how procedural shortcuts can prove fatal when material disputes exist.
Finally, the judgment reinforces that any reproductive arrangement must be tested against the paramountcy principle from inception. Practitioners cannot advise clients to pursue strategies that prioritise adult convenience over children’s welfare, regardless of apparent statutory support. Early consideration of how proposed arrangements serve children’s interests will prevent later litigation disasters.
Questions and Answers
What is the legal effect of section 40(3) of the Children’s Act on gamete donors? Section 40(3) creates a statutory bar preventing rights, responsibilities, duties or obligations from arising between children born through artificial fertilisation and gamete donors, except where the donor is the birth mother or was married to her at the time of fertilisation. The provision protects genuine donors from unwanted legal obligations.
When will courts exercise discretion to grant declaratory relief under section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act? Courts retain discretion whether to conduct enquiries or make determinations under this section. The applicant must demonstrate a proper basis for exercising discretion favourably, considering factors including the interests of affected parties and the purpose of the relief sought.
How do courts determine whether a valid gamete donor agreement exists? Courts examine the totality of evidence including written documentation, conduct of parties, communications, and surrounding circumstances. Informal arrangements or standard clinic forms may prove insufficient, particularly where material disputes of fact exist about the parties’ true intentions.
What role does the best interests principle play in artificial fertilisation disputes? The Children’s Act establishes that children’s interests are paramount in all child-related matters. Courts must evaluate how proposed relief affects children’s welfare, rejecting applications that would deprive children of beneficial relationships or support, even where technical legal arguments might support adult applicants.
How did the court distinguish the QG case from the present facts? The QG case involved an undisputed donor agreement between parties with no romantic history, where the donor later sought contact with the child. The recipients were married to each other, and the section operated to preserve their family unit rather than exclude a biological father from responsibilities.
What procedural error did the applicant make in seeking declaratory relief? The applicant assumed a valid agreement existed and sought a declaration of its enforceability, rather than first seeking determination of whether an agreement actually existed. This approach proved fatal when the respondent disputed the existence of any donor arrangement.
Why did the court refuse to refer the matter to oral evidence? The court noted that it cannot refer matters to oral evidence when such relief is not sought by the applicant. The applicant had structured his case on the premise that an agreement existed, rather than seeking a factual determination of its existence.
How does subsequent conduct affect the validity of alleged gamete donor agreements? Post-conception behaviour can provide crucial evidence of parties’ true intentions. Conduct suggesting paternal involvement, relationship-building with children, and ongoing support may contradict claims of pure donor arrangements, particularly where such conduct is detailed and specific.
What distinguishes genuine gamete donation from biological fatherhood in law? Genuine donation typically involves anonymous recipients, formal agreements, clinical procedures, and absence of romantic relationships between parties. Where intimate relationships exist and conduct suggests co-parenting intentions, courts may reject donor characterisations as artificial constructs.
How did the AV case differ from the present application? In the AV case, the donor sought inclusion in the child’s life rather than exclusion from responsibilities. Despite recognising donor status, the court awarded contact rights and acknowledged maintenance obligations, demonstrating the inclusionary approach that contradicted the present applicant’s exclusionary goals.
What is the court’s role as Upper Guardian of children in reproductive disputes? As Upper Guardian, the court has special obligations to protect children’s interests and scrutinise relief that would prejudice those under its protection. Courts will not exercise discretionary powers to achieve results harmful to children, regardless of technical legal arguments supporting adult applicants.
How do courts assess prejudice when exercising discretion in family matters? Courts conduct comparative prejudice analyses, weighing harm to all affected parties. The judgment demonstrated this by contrasting grave prejudice to children and severe prejudice to the mother against negligible prejudice to a financially capable professional avoiding support obligations.
What evidential standard applies to material disputes of fact in motion proceedings? Where material disputes exist, courts cannot make findings on contested facts without referring matters to oral evidence. However, if such referral is not sought, courts must work within the constraints of the papers before them, potentially dismissing applications where factual foundations are disputed.
How does the Children’s Act’s stated purpose influence interpretation of section 40(3)? The Act’s purposes include promoting family preservation and strengthening, alongside protecting children’s development and wellbeing. These objectives create interpretive constraints preventing sections from being used to undermine family relationships or children’s welfare, even where technical readings might permit such outcomes.
What costs considerations apply when applications prejudice children’s interests? Courts may award costs against applicants seeking relief harmful to children’s interests, particularly where such applications appear to circumvent maintenance obligations. The judgment characterised the applicant’s pursuit of costs against an impoverished mother as “distasteful” in the circumstances.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: