Latest news with #MrK
Telegraph
29-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Allowing 70-year-olds to have a baby is appalling. Why don't we ever say no anymore?
Here goes. I know little ears might be listening. More saliently, I know elderly ears might be listening, too. A British couple in their 70s have just been granted permission by the courts to become the legal parents of a 14-month-old baby boy. Not because of family breakdown, not through necessity. But because they paid a surrogate in California £151,000 to carry the embryo made from the husband's sperm and a donor egg. Now, I also know that whatever the unfortunate, regrettable or just plain awful circumstances of its conception, once a baby is born, the slate is wiped clean and jubilation is the only possible human, humane response. Because babies are a blessing. They represent hope, love and all that is squidgy and precious – they should never be burdened with the sins of their proverbial fathers and mothers. But sometimes – and it would seem, more often than just sometimes – we need to speak up and say 'enough'. Speak out and shout: 'NO! No, you can't. No, you mustn't. JUST STOP!' The court papers describe how the wealthy retired couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs K, decided to have a surrogate baby after their son 'A' died from cancer in 2020 shortly before he turned 27. By any measure that is an out-and-out tragedy. A life-long bereavement. But how could they possibly believe that having another baby in their twilight years was the best course of action? Did no-one advise them against it? Did they not have friends or wider family to forcefully impress upon them that effectively replacing their son with a new baby would be an act of grief-induced madness? It would seem not. In a written judgment handed down last month in the family division of the High Court, Mrs Justice Knowles said she had made her judgment public because it raised an 'important welfare issue and offers some advice for those who may, in future, engage in a foreign or other surrogacy arrangement'. She added that it was an 'undeniable fact' that when the child – referred to as 'B' – started primary school, Mr and Mrs K would be both aged 76. 'Put starkly, Mr and Mrs K will both be 89 years old when B reaches his majority,' Judge Knowles said. Despite those concerns, she granted a parental order to give 'permanence and security' to the child's care arrangements 'in circumstances where no one else other than Mr and Mrs K seek to provide lifelong care for him'. The couple, it was said, have made provisions in their will for friends of their deceased son – a couple in their early 30s – to become the child's legal guardians if they die or are unable to look after him. So that's all right then. Or is it? It is troubling to note this is the third such case to emerge in the last year where a 'parental order' has been given to British 'intended parents' in their 60s and 70s for children born to surrogate mothers abroad. And none of that is OK. These acts of blind selfishness are so egregiously wrong that it's hard to fathom where to start – and I speak as someone who suffered the torment of infertility for many years. Even as I struggled and invested my life's savings, I knew deep down there was a cut-off point; and it was a good two and a half decades before my 70th birthday. Not just because any reputable clinic would have stopped treating me – although many a less scrupulous outfit beyond these shores would have stepped in. But because it would have been weird and icky and unnatural (the irony of being pumped with drugs is not lost on me) to keep going and going. I felt – I still feel – that beyond 50 it would be wrong. For me, 45 was my limit. Just because my husband and I looked young and fit, didn't mean we were. Above all, however, it felt immoral to bring – let's be honest, engineer – a baby into the world at the point when menopause decreed my reproductive days were over. I was lucky. I had two daughters by the age of 42. I will urge them that if they want families they should start early in case my infertility is inherited. Or in case their partner has been hit by 'spermageddon'; over the past 40 years, sperm counts worldwide have halved and sperm quality has declined 'alarmingly', with one in 20 men currently facing reduced fertility. I would never have gone down the surrogacy route to become a mother although I know women who have and that's their business. It becomes society's business, however, when elderly couples start doing the same. There's no legal age limit for people in the position of Mr and Mrs K. There should be – if only because, as a nation, we seem to be increasingly in the thrall of the pernicious 'you do you' hands-off mentality fostered by social media. Blithely letting people do as they like without regard for the consequences might empower the individual, but it sure as hell disempowers the rest of us. Time and again we fail to condemn unpalatable behaviour because a spurious and deeply juvenile notion of 'kindness' takes precedence over common sense. Activists have taken advantage – why wouldn't they? For years our pusillanimous institutions have fallen foul of aggressive transgender ideologues demanding rights to which they were never entitled. I for one found it downright humiliating that it took the Supreme Court to assert the biological fact that trans women are not women (the clue being in the title). Then we have doctors lambasted for doing their jobs. GPs informing patients they are obese and their health is at risk has been reframed by campaigners as 'weight-shaming'. And as that might 'cause offence' it is, of course, to be avoided. What are medics supposed to do? Send a text? Mime it? All too often we find ourselves kowtowing to the few at the expense of the many and tolerating the intolerable. At dinner tables the length of the land, the tiresome cry from younger generations of 'you can't say that!' goes up daily. When the grown-ups acquiesce for an easier life, that doesn't burnish our liberal credentials, it makes fools of us all. We have a responsibility to safeguard our values. And when it comes to pensioners commissioning babies, age isn't just a number. Yes, Mr and Mrs K suffered a terrible loss, but what they desperately needed was a grief counsellor not a fertility clinic.
Telegraph
28-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Couple in seventies win right to parent surrogate baby
A couple in their 70s have won the right to parent a surrogate baby boy despite a judge's concerns they may both die before he reaches adulthood. The husband and wife, who are both aged 72, applied for a parental order to become the legal guardians of the child, who was born via a surrogate in California. In a judgment passed down from the family division of the High Court, the judge highlighted issues with the age of the couple – referred to only as Mr and Mrs K. The baby, referred to as B and now 16 months old, was born to a surrogate using Mr K's sperm and a donor egg. Mrs Justice Knowles said the court needed to 'carefully' examine what arrangements had been made in the event of their deaths, after pointing out the 'undeniable fact' they would likely be 82 when B started secondary school and 89 when he reached adulthood. 'They have begun parenting at a time in their lives when, despite their current good health, it is foreseeable that their health will decline and that one or both of them will become seriously incapacitated or die before B reaches his majority,' she said. 'That reality has a direct impact on B's welfare, both immediately and in the not so distant future.' She added that no matter how fit Mr and Mrs K seem now, their health was 'at the mercy' of an ageing process which becomes 'more cruel and capricious as the years go by'. 'Permanence and security' However, despite the concerns Mrs Justice Knowles granted the parental order to allow B 'permanence and security' in his care arrangements. She said the failure to do so would deny him the 'social and emotional benefits' of a family life with Mr and Mrs K. The hearing was told the 'wealthy' couple turned to surrogacy after their son, who was born via IVF, died of cancer shortly before his 27th birthday in 2020. They had 'taken heart' from the stories of other grieving parents who 'found solace' in having other children following the death of a child. Mr and Mrs K then embarked on their surrogacy journey but were 'adamant' they were not trying to replace him or 'manage their grief'. After a suitable surrogate was identified through an agency in California, B was born in January last year having paid £151,000 to the woman and the agency, of which £24,635 was deemed to be 'reasonably incurred'. The couple now 'devote themselves' to his care, in which they are assisted by a nanny who comes to the family home five days a week. They have also made arrangements with a couple in their 30s and family members to look after B in the case of their deaths. Concluding her decision, the judge wished the family 'every happiness in future'. Helen Gibson, the founder of Surrogacy Concern, said the case was 'abhorrent'. 'We are appalled to see a parental order awarded in this case; this child would have been better off being placed in the care of another family, not being left to be raised by people likely to be dead before he reaches the age of majority,' she said. Lexi Ellingsworth, co-founder at Stop Surrogacy Now UK, added: 'This case is yet another example of the flaws in our current law and in proposed reforms recommended by the Law Commission. 'There are no upper age limits for commissioning parents, or for surrogate mothers, and the 'parental order pathway' would continue to allow Britons to go abroad to buy babies'.
Daily Mail
28-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Elderly couple in their 70s become legal parents of surrogate baby boy despite judge's fears they could die before he reaches 18
A couple in their 70s has been granted a court order to become the legal parents of a 14-month-old surrogate baby boy - despite a judge's concerns they could die before the child reaches 18. The husband and wife, both aged 72, applied to the courts for a parental order in July after the baby was born six months earlier to a surrogate in California using the husband's sperm and a donor egg. In a written judgment handed down last month in the family division of the High Court, it said the application by the couple - referred to only as 'Mr and Mrs K' - was allowed on March 28. Mrs Justice Knowles said that she had made her judgment public because it raised an 'important welfare issue and offers some advice for those who may, in future, engage in a foreign or other surrogacy arrangement'. She added that it was an 'undeniable fact' that when the child - referred to as 'B' - started primary school, Mr and Mrs K would be both aged 76. 'Put starkly, Mr and Mrs K will both be 89 years old when B reaches his majority [18 years old],' she said. 'They have begun parenting at a time in their lives when, despite their current good health, it is foreseeable that their health will decline and that one or both of them will become seriously incapacitated or die before B reaches his majority.' However, despite her concerns, the judge granted the parental order to give 'permanence and security' to the child's care arrangements 'in circumstances where no one else other than Mr and Mrs K seek to provide lifelong care for him'. It is the third such case to emerge in the last year where a 'parental order' has been given to British 'intended parents' in their sixties and seventies for children born to surrogate mothers abroad. In the court papers, first reported by The Times, it was described how Mr and Mrs K, a 'wealthy' retired couple, decided to have a surrogate baby after their son 'A' died from cancer in 2020 shortly before he turned 27. They had conceived 'A' following several rounds of IVF. In autumn 2022, Mr and Mrs K identified an egg donor and in early 2023 they were matched with a surrogate through a surrogacy agency in California, with 'B' then born in January last year. The couple were in the United States at the time of the birth and returned to the UK in March 2024, with 'B' travelling on a US passport naming them as the parents. Mr and Mrs K paid just over £151,000 to the surrogate mother and the agency, of which just £24,635 was deemed to be 'reasonably incurred' by the court, according to the judgement. Mr and Mrs K have made provisions in their will for friends of their deceased son - a couple in their early thirties - to become 'B's' legal guardians if they die or are unable to look after the child. The judgment adds that the couple are looking after the child with the help of a full-time nanny and that the boy was said to be in good health. There is no legal age limit for so-called 'intended parents' in surrogacy arrangements in the UK, but campaigners have condemned the trend of older people having babies through surrogates. Lexi Ellingsworth, co-founder at Stop Surrogacy Now UK, said this case demonstrates the 'flaws' in the current law when it comes to surrogacy arrangements in the UK. She added: 'There are no upper age limits for commissioning parents in the UK, or for surrogate mothers, and the 'parental order pathway' would continue to allow Britons to go abroad to buy babies. 'This appalling loophole which enables people to get around our domestic ban on commercial surrogacy practices must be closed by the Government immediately.' Surrogacy Concern founder Helen Gibson said the case was appalling and called on the Government to ban international surrogacy, which happens through commercial deals rather than the 'altruistic', not-for-profit surrogacy allowed in the UK.
Sydney Morning Herald
11-05-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
Law firm partner accused of rape at Sydney home loses $3 million lawsuit
A law firm partner in his 50s who was charged with sexually assaulting a 21-year-old junior staffer at his Sydney home after cocaine- and alcohol-fuelled Melbourne Cup celebrations has lost a malicious prosecution case against the state of NSW. Details of the rape allegations can be revealed after the senior lawyer unsuccessfully sued the state for more than $3 million in damages for claimed false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. The NSW Supreme Court said the man was charged with sexual assault in December 2019 along with his close friend, dubbed Mr K, who 'undertook work for the law firm'. The firm 'had a branch in Sydney and another branch or branches outside of Sydney', Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg said. The woman had travelled to Sydney for a Melbourne Cup function hosted by her employer in 2019. 'A joint jury trial of both men in the NSW District Court was terminated on May 11, 2021 when, during the course of the complainant's evidence, she indicated that she was not prepared to continue, and the Director [of Public Prosecutions] discontinued the proceedings.' 'She said that she, [the female solicitor], the barrister and Mr K all had cocaine.' Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg The law firm partner alleged as part of his malicious prosecution suit that the NSW detective who investigated the rape allegations was motivated to appease the complainant and her family because one of her relatives, whom he had never met, was 'a high-ranking … police officer' interstate. 'I never met the guy. Why would I be influenced by that?' the detective said during his evidence in the Supreme Court.
The Age
11-05-2025
- The Age
Law firm partner accused of rape at Sydney home loses $3 million lawsuit
A law firm partner in his 50s who was charged with sexually assaulting a 21-year-old junior staffer at his Sydney home after cocaine- and alcohol-fuelled Melbourne Cup celebrations has lost a malicious prosecution case against the state of NSW. Details of the rape allegations can be revealed after the senior lawyer unsuccessfully sued the state for more than $3 million in damages for claimed false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. The NSW Supreme Court said the man was charged with sexual assault in December 2019 along with his close friend, dubbed Mr K, who 'undertook work for the law firm'. The firm 'had a branch in Sydney and another branch or branches outside of Sydney', Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg said. The woman had travelled to Sydney for a Melbourne Cup function hosted by her employer in 2019. 'A joint jury trial of both men in the NSW District Court was terminated on May 11, 2021 when, during the course of the complainant's evidence, she indicated that she was not prepared to continue, and the Director [of Public Prosecutions] discontinued the proceedings.' 'She said that she, [the female solicitor], the barrister and Mr K all had cocaine.' Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg The law firm partner alleged as part of his malicious prosecution suit that the NSW detective who investigated the rape allegations was motivated to appease the complainant and her family because one of her relatives, whom he had never met, was 'a high-ranking … police officer' interstate. 'I never met the guy. Why would I be influenced by that?' the detective said during his evidence in the Supreme Court.
