Well, it will depend on the circumstances. Every case is different and the end result will depend on the facts of your case.
The case of Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21 (“the Masson and Parsons case”) from the High Court of Australia is a case that involved a sperm donor.
The biological mother was the mother of two children. At the time of conception of the elder child, she was not in a de-facto relationship or married relationship.
The biological father of the elder child was by way of artificial insemination. This was arranged privately with the mother on an informal basis.
When the matter was heard in the High Court, the decision of the High Court turned on constitutional considerations, and a determination of “who is a parent”.
The High Court ultimately determined that the definition of “parent” should follow the ordinary meaning of “parent” as accepted in contemporary society. In other words, it would not automatically prevent a sperm donor from being a parent.
It was held that this was a question to be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
The father is this case, not only acted as a sperm donor, but he had a very close relationship with the child and was very engaged with the child. This had always been the agreed intention of the biological parents. It was determined that the father was always considered to be the other intended “parent”.
Because of this, the mother was not permitted to relocate with the child to New Zealand unless the father consented or there was a Court Order permitting her to do so. The biological mother was also to consult with the biological father on long-term parenting decisions concerning the child.
It can be argued that despite the High Court not addressing what the Court’s position would be if a party was merely a sperm donor, there is an argument that the simple fact that a person is a sperm donor does not necessarily mean they will be deemed to be a “parent”.