What shapes the experience of meeting a sperm donor for the first time
Meeting the sperm donor for the first time: what can shape the experiences of donor-conceived people? (van Rooij, 2026)
van Rooij, F. B., Mochtar, M. H., van Brouwershaven, A. C., Schrijvers, A. M., Bolt, S. H., Visser, M., Maas, A. J. B. M., & Bos, H. M. W. (2026). Meeting the sperm donor for the first time: what can shape the experiences of donor-conceived people? Reproductive BioMedicine Online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2026.105475
Geographic Region: The Netherlands
Research Question: How do donor-conceived people experience being linked with and meeting their sperm donor for the first time?
Context: The Netherlands operates one of the most structured donor-linking systems in the world: when a donor-conceived person requests identifying information, the government registry notifies the donor and automatically refers the donor-conceived person to Fiom for free, professionally supported counseling, and then facilitates a meeting with the donor.
Design: Cross-sectional, retrospective qualitative study. Researchers conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with donor-conceived people who had already met their sperm donor and who had received professional counselling support through Fiom, a Dutch organisation specialising in ancestry questions. Interviews were conducted in person between 2019 and 2020, lasted approximately one hour on average.
Sample: 17 donor-conceived people (average age 32 years, range 17–42; 15 women, 2 men). Most were born into mother-father families (n=14), with two from mother-mother families and one from a single-mother family. The majority had been conceived using sperm from a formerly anonymous donor (n=14); three had identifiable donors. Participants learned about their donor conception at widely varying ages: two had always known, others found out in childhood, teenage years, or adulthood. The largest group (n=5) discovered this at age 19 or older. Most were told by their parents (n=13). The rest found out from someone else or through their own discovery. Participants were recruited in two ways: through a previous study on donor-conceived people who had consented to be re-contacted, and through announcements on the websites and social media.
Key Findings
Participants described multiple, overlapping reasons for wanting to find and meet the donor. The most frequently mentioned were: seeking physical or personality resemblances they couldn’t find in the family that raised them; a sense of incomplete identity without knowing the donor; curiosity; wanting to understand their genetic origins; seeking medical information; wanting to find peace or closure; a sense of having a right to meet; and wanting to understand why the donor chose to donate. Motivations changed over time and were often triggered by major life events, particularly having children of their own or facing medical situations where genetic history became relevant.
Participants’ desire to meet the donor ranged widely. Those with the strongest desire to meet their donor appeared more likely to report disappointment, possibly because high expectations were harder to meet.
Participants with identifiable donors had a more straightforward path to finding their donors. They could request information directly from the Dutch governmental donor information body. Those with formerly anonymous donors often experienced long, complicated, and emotionally draining searches spanning multiple years, involving repeated dead ends, incorrect information, and even active discouragement from clinic staff.
Participants described three broad types of expectations: deliberately low expectations (to protect against disappointment); expectations of physical or personality resemblance; and idealized expectations, sometimes involving fantasies about a donor who would be wealthy, powerful, or “perfect.”
The gap between expectations and the actual meeting was a key factor in how participants felt about the experience. When the meeting met or exceeded expectations, participants reported positive feelings. When it fell short, like if the donor showed less interest than hoped, or the conversation felt awkward, participants reported disappointment.
Upon learning they had been matched with a donor, participants reported a range of feelings: happiness, relief, a sense of peace, surprise, unreality, and fear. Several described being caught completely off guard after searching for so long. In the lead-up to the meeting, nervousness was the most commonly reported feeling, alongside anxiety about being rejected or about how to present themselves. During the meeting itself, participants frequently experienced multiple, sometimes conflicting emotions simultaneously, including relief and disappointment, happiness and shock. Feelings also shifted over the course of the meeting.
All but two participants reported experiencing some degree of recognition during the first meeting (e.g., physical traits, personality, motor skills, interests, or ways of expressing themselves). For some, this brought an immediate sense of connection or “click.” Participants who had the strongest desire to meet the donor were more likely to report less recognition, possibly because high expectations made even genuine resemblances feel insufficient. Participants who experienced little or no recognition, or whose expectations of the donor’s personality or behavior were not met, tended to have more negative overall experiences.
The donor’s level of interest, how openly and warmly he engaged, the information he shared, and his willingness to consider future contact all shaped participants’ experiences. When the donor seemed genuinely interested and warm, the meeting was more likely to be described positively. Receiving unexpected or difficult information about the donor’s medical or psychological history (e.g., depression, psychosis, or cancer) was described as shocking or “gloomy” for some participants, even when they had wanted to know about their genetic background.
Counseling was described as valuable by most participants, particularly for managing expectations before the meeting, starting and facilitating the conversation during the meeting, and providing aftercare afterward. Some participants found the counselor’s presence during the meeting helpful or reassuring, especially younger participants or those who felt overwhelmed by emotion. Others found the formal setting reduced the sense of intimacy they wanted. A minority said the preparation was insufficient and wished they had received more thorough information and emotional support in advance.
Not all participants felt supported by their parents. Some reported that parents discouraged the search, were unaware of how to help, or had unresolved feelings about infertility that made the topic difficult. Several participants chose not to tell their parents about their search to avoid upsetting them.
Limitations: The sample was small (n=17). Women were heavily overrepresented (88%), as were people from mother-father families (82%) and those with formerly anonymous donors (82%). Part of the research team was employed by Fiom, the very organization providing the counseling being evaluated. While this is disclosed in the paper, it represents a potential conflict of interest that may have influenced findings in favor of the Fiom counseling model. Participants who had a negative experience, did not complete the process, or chose not to meet their donor at all are absent from this study. The sample is drawn entirely from a Dutch, likely predominantly white context, which limits generalizability.
Applications: For mental health professionals and counselors supporting donor-conceived people seeking contact with donors, the most actionable finding from this study is that counseling must be individually tailored. Helping donor-conceived people develop realistic but open expectations for first meetings with their donors could help to improve the experience.
Funding Source: ZonMw (grant number 854020001), the Dutch organization for health research and development
Lead Author: Floor B. van Rooij is a researcher at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education at the University of Amsterdam, whose work focuses on family formation, parenting, infertility, and donor conception in diverse cultural contexts and family types. No personal connection to donor conception was disclosed.
Regulatory Context
The Netherlands is governed by the Artificial Fertilisation Donor Information Act (Wet donorgegevens kunstmatige bevruchting, 2004), which abolished anonymous gamete donation. This law established the national Cdkb (College Donorgegevens Kunstmatige Bevruchting), a government body that maintains records of donors and donor-conceived people.
At birth, parents can request a non-identifying “donor passport” with physical and social information about the donor. At age 12, donor-conceived people can request this information themselves. At age 16, they can request personally identifying information (name, date of birth, and city of residence). Before identifying information is released, the Cdkb notifies the donor and seeks confirmation to proceed. The Cdkb then refers donor-conceived people to Fiom, which provides free counselling and facilitates meetings between donor-conceived people and donors.
Fiom operates a voluntary DNA database (Fiom KID-DNA Database, established 2010) for people conceived before 2004 who cannot access donor information through official channels.
Donors who donated before 2004 had the option to change their status to anonymous; for deceased pre-2004 donors, next of kin may be approached.
Commercial gamete donation is prohibited; only altruistic donation is permitted.
Related Posts
Family dynamics factor in donor identity search process (Widbom, 2024)
Interesting post, thanks! I made contact with my donor (who lived in the US, I'm in the UK) and he happened to be coming over 2 weeks later for work so me, the donor and my new bio-sister all met up at a bar and met each other at the same time, for the first time. It was the surrealist thing that has ever, and probably will ever, happen to me. We spent a few days hanging out together. There may be another 50 or 60 siblings out there, time will tell.