Disclosure of sperm donor identity could not be refused

The Hague, 02 June 2021

Donor children and their mothers who litigate about the disclosure of the identity of their sperm donor are largely in the right by the court in The Hague. The donor data foundation for artificial insemination (SDKB) and the clinic must assess whether the donor's reasons for wishing to remain anonymous are compelling enough. If not, they must disclose the donor's identity to the children. The court therefore does not rule that that identity should already be disclosed.

Donor identity

The children were born after artificial inseminations in the years 1997-2000. During this time, seed donations were usually made anonymously. However, the mothers consciously opted for the sperm of a donor who had agreed with the clinic that his identity would be allowed to be disclosed. Later he was only allowed to refrain from doing so if there were serious reasons for doing so.

Artificial Fertilization Donor Data Act

In 2004, the Artificial Insemination Donor Data Act (the Wdkb) came into effect.

The basic principle of this law is that it is no longer possible to donate seed anonymously. From the age of sixteen, donor children can obtain the identity data of the donor via SDKB, unless there are compelling interests of the donor not to reveal his identity.

For donors who had donated semen before this law, such as the donor in this case, the law makes an exception. They may refuse to disclose their identity without giving any reason. The Wdkb makes no distinction between donors who have donated anonymously or a donor who has previously consented to his identity being disclosed.

Requests rejected

The children in this case first asked SDKB for the identity of the donor. They have not received it, because the donor has informed SDKB that he objects to his data being provided. They then asked the clinic for this data, which also declined this request.

Inquiry and assessment

The court is of the opinion that SDKB may not apply the exception rule in the Wdkb in this case, because this is contrary to the right of the children to know from whom they descend. This right is enshrined in international treaties (Article 8 ECHR and 7 CRC). SDKB must therefore apply the main rule of the Wdkb in this case. This means that SDKB must provide the identity of the donor to the children, unless the donor has compelling interests to remain anonymous. SDKB must therefore inquire and assess this.

The court also ruled that the clinic must fulfill its agreements with the mothers and must therefore also disclose the identity of the donor to the children, unless there are compelling reasons on the part of the donor.

Whether SDKB and/or the clinic will actually disclose the donor's identity is not yet certain. That depends on the donor's reasons for not agreeing to it. Those are not yet known.

.