Sperm does not make a father, and being a biological parent does not automatically grant parental rights, according to a ruling by the Pension Funds Adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane.
Lukhaimane dismissed a complaint from a woman who was aggrieved that Old Mutual Wealth Retirement Annuity Fund refused to recognise her twin children as beneficiaries after the death of their sperm donor father.
The deceased, a member of the fund, passed away on January 4, 2021, leaving behind several relatives, including a minor daughter, a minor son, a major son, a stepson, and two customary spouses. A gross death benefit of R787,524 before tax was available to be allocated among his beneficiaries. The fund allocated 80% of this benefit to the deceased's major son and 20% to one of his customary spouses.
However, the complainant, who had conceived the twins through artificial insemination with the deceased's sperm, was unhappy that her children were not included as beneficiaries. She explained that she and the deceased had a platonic relationship before deciding to co-parent the children. Even though the deceased passed away three months into her pregnancy, she claimed that he had been a supportive prospective father, financing medical appointments and procedures throughout her pregnancy.
The complainant said she met the deceased in early 2020 and later agreed to co-parent their children through artificial insemination. She said he was actively preparing financially to care for the children, and she believed his actions demonstrated his commitment to being an active father.
The complainant argued that the deceased’s actions, including financial support and regular communication, went beyond the role of a typical sperm donor. She pointed to text messages as evidence of the bond between them, claiming that they shared a mutual desire to raise the children together.
However, the fund countered that the deceased did not qualify as a “parent” under the Children’s Act. It cited section 40 of the Act, which excludes sperm donors from acquiring parental rights unless they are married to the woman giving birth. The fund further pointed out that the deceased had signed a "known donor consent form" acknowledging that the children born through artificial insemination were not his legitimate offspring.
The fund argued that, despite the complainant’s claims, the relationship between the complainant and the deceased did not constitute a dependency for the twins, and the text messages provided did not show that the deceased intended to take on financial responsibility for the children. "The text messages provided by the complainant were correctly analysed by the fund as insufficient to prove that the deceased intended to be financially responsible for the twins," the fund argued.
In her determination, Lukhaimane explained that under the Children’s Act, sperm donors do not acquire parental rights unless they are married to the woman who gives birth. She also noted that the deceased did not live with the complainant, nor did he make provisions for the children in his Will or through any beneficiary nomination.
"The complainant had a platonic relationship with the deceased, and the text messages provided confirmed this. Further, the deceased’s financial contributions to the complainant’s medical expenses during her pregnancy do not constitute dependency for the children," Lukhaimane stated. "The fund correctly excluded the twins from the allocation of the death benefit."
As a result, Lukhaimane dismissed the complainant’s claim, affirming that the twins could not be considered dependants of the deceased under the law.
PERSONAL FINANCE