Couple aged 63 and 65 become Britain's oldest parents using surrogate mother - only to have one-year-old child taken away by social services

[*]A couple, from the north of England, have become Britain’s oldest parents
[*]The 63 and 65-year-old spent more than £100,000 on a surrogate mother 
[*]They were left ‘devastated’ after the baby was taken away by social services
[*]Their age is thought to be a factor in fears over the one-year-old’s well-being


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5670651/Britains-oldest-parents-using-surrogate-mother-child-taken-away-social-services.html#ixzz5E3WbkKgd 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So wrong on every level to take away the child and to me this reeks of ageism.

For a start the couple are far too old to have a baby this way.
Sounds like they have more money than sense, its selfish in the extreme imo.

I know many grandparents care for children, but that's usually out of necessity not design.

Why the social workers have decided to take the child away from them isn't clear, but I doubt their age is the main concern, maybe they are just not capable of looking after a  baby.

Many people of this age are still very active and fit but having said that you won't always stay that way, all sorts of things can happen at any age but the older you get the more likely that things will go wrong healthwise. I presume they have a plan B for a relative to take over should the worst happen. There seems to be more to this than just age though. People used to have children into their 50's at one, naturally but older siblings would end up caring for the younger ones. On the whole I don't think this is a good idea.

I’m kind of torn. On the one hand they do seem too old to be honest but as vintage pointed out, many people of that age can be really robustly fit and well.

To take a child away due to age seems harsh and horrid - and at a year old that child has bonded and fallen in love with its parents.

Too old. They're pensioners and by the time their child is a teenager they'd be pushing 80!

I think this is wrong. They're not exactly ancient, and their age should not be a consideration. Surrogacy is not illegal in this country, and if there are concerns, perhaps it should be - for everyone.

I doubt social services could take a child away from its parents because they are older than the norm.
The article says...
"Social services first spoke with the couple, who are from the north of England, last year and warned them that they had to make improvements to how their child was being cared for. It was decided that the necessary measures to ensure the child’s well-being had not been taken and so social services took the baby into care."

magica wrote:Too old. They're pensioners and by the time their child is a teenager they'd be pushing 80.

Exactly Mags....they may be fit now but in 10 or 15 years from now, when other parents still have youth and energy to play football and take them places kids love to go to, these two, like you say will be pushing 80....or worse.

Its selfish. If people haven't bothered to have kids before they reach middle or old age they should listen to Mother Nature and give it up.

What about surrogate mothers? Should they accept payment to have a child for others who are apparently "too old" or otherwise unsuitable to be parents? Should the surrogate now be forced to give up any money she got as the couple no longer have the child?

It was all done abroad, as the article said most clinics in this country wouldn't deal with them owing to their age.

Its not illegal.....pretty immoral imo.

The surrogate did her job, once the transaction is done I doubt she would give up the money she earned.

You don't need a clinic to have a surrogate baby though. Should it be illegal in this country?

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:Too old. They're pensioners and by the time their child is a teenager they'd be pushing 80.

Exactly Mags....they may be fit now but in 10 or 15 years from now, when other parents still have youth and energy to play football and take them places kids love to go to, these two, like you say  will be pushing 80....or worse.

Its selfish. If people haven't bothered to have kids before they reach middle or old age they should listen to Mother Nature and give it up.

I agree Syl. I've got teens grandchildren and I can't always keep up. There's a reason why women's bodies can't make babies in mid sixties, because their too old. Why did they wait this long, and when taking a five year old to school everyone would think they're grandparents, how rotten for the child to call her mum when 70, its all wrong. If they're lucky they could live to their eighties, if not the child's an orphan, its all wrong.

To answer Rags, no one should buy a baby. Thing is the surrogate had the baby, so yes they should keep the money.

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:

Exactly Mags....they may be fit now but in 10 or 15 years from now, when other parents still have youth and energy to play football and take them places kids love to go to, these two, like you say  will be pushing 80....or worse.

Its selfish. If people haven't bothered to have kids before they reach middle or old age they should listen to Mother Nature and give it up.

I agree Syl. I've got teens grandchildren and I can't always keep up. There's a reason why women's bodies can't make babies in mid sixties, because their too old.  Why did they wait this long, and when taking a five year old to school everyone would think they're grandparents, how rotten for the child to call her mum when 70, its all wrong. If they're lucky they could live to their eighties, if not the child's an orphan, its all wrong.

To answer Rags, no one should buy a baby. Thing is the surrogate had the baby, so yes they should keep the money.

If no one should buy a baby, why should someone be able to sell one?

I don't think it's for anyone else to judge if they're too old really. It's their responsibility to decide if they're able to look after a child.

Yes but they will probably die before the child hit twenty. It's wrong imo.

magica wrote:Yes but they will probably die before the child hit twenty. It's wrong imo.

You could say that any parents could die before a child hits 20. They're only in their 60s - they could go on for another 30 years!

It's not even that the parents might die. It's the actual fact that they will be in advanced old age with its attendant health problems when that poor kid is at a time of life where it should enjoying itself and having the freedom to spread its wings. Instead, it's highly likely it will be forced into a situation where it will have to care for the elderly parents. Even if they have pots of money and can afford carers, it's still traumatic to see your parents you've only had for a very short time wither and die. That kind of thing is bad enough when you're middle aged yourself, never mind when you're only 18 or 20!

We need to stop meddling with nature too. There's a reason a woman can't conceive after a certain age. You need lots of physical and emotional stamina to bring up a child. I know mid sixties is not a great age and many people are fit as fiddles physically at that time of life but your emotional stamina and overall energy is waning which could result in neglect of that child's needs...which is obviously what's happened.

Raggamuffin wrote:

magica wrote:Yes but they will probably die before the child hit twenty. It's wrong imo.

You could say that any parents could die before a child hits 20. They're only in their 60s - they could go on for another 30 years!

Yes but more pop off the older they get. Being young gives them a chance to live forty maybe more years and see their grandchildren too.

I forgot to say, no babies shouldn't be sold, they're not sweeties in a shop to be bought or sold.

HoratioTarr wrote:It's not even that the parents might die.  It's the actual fact that they will be in advanced old age with its attendant health problems when that poor kid is at a time of life where it should enjoying itself and having the freedom to spread its wings.   Instead, it's highly likely it will be forced into a situation where it will have to care for the elderly parents.  Even if they have pots of money and can afford carers, it's still traumatic to see your parents you've only had for a very short time wither and die.   That kind of thing is bad enough when you're middle aged yourself, never mind when you're only 18 or 20!

We need to stop meddling with nature too.   There's a reason a woman can't conceive after a certain age.    You need lots of physical and emotional stamina to bring up a child.   I know mid sixties is not a great age and many people are fit as fiddles physically at that time of life but your emotional stamina and overall energy is waning which could result in neglect of that child's needs...which is obviously what's happened.

The man had no trouble though, and that's nature. How come men are capable of fathering and caring for a child in their 60s then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:It's not even that the parents might die.  It's the actual fact that they will be in advanced old age with its attendant health problems when that poor kid is at a time of life where it should enjoying itself and having the freedom to spread its wings.   Instead, it's highly likely it will be forced into a situation where it will have to care for the elderly parents.  Even if they have pots of money and can afford carers, it's still traumatic to see your parents you've only had for a very short time wither and die.   That kind of thing is bad enough when you're middle aged yourself, never mind when you're only 18 or 20!

We need to stop meddling with nature too.   There's a reason a woman can't conceive after a certain age.    You need lots of physical and emotional stamina to bring up a child.   I know mid sixties is not a great age and many people are fit as fiddles physically at that time of life but your emotional stamina and overall energy is waning which could result in neglect of that child's needs...which is obviously what's happened.

The man had no trouble though, and that's nature. How come men are capable of fathering and caring for a child in their 60s then?

Because they're not the ones who have to carry it, give birth, breast feed it, and usually do the majority of the donkey work. From a physiological viewpoint, most of the hard work falls on the woman. After the age of 50 there are more complications and risks to both woman and baby. The body is ageing and it's just not at its peak. Also, there's the generation gap. Imagine having fuddy duddy old parents when everyone else has trendy young parents? Would a 70 or 80 year old be able to cope with a rambunctious teenager and all the stress they usually cause? Which ever way you look at this, it's going against nature.


I gave birth at 18 and it damned near killed me. The thoughts of doing it all now gives me the vapours!

When you haven't had a child, you probably imagine it will be the easiest thing in the world to have one. The reality is somewhat different.

My grandson was starting uni at the age this couple were starting out parenting a baby.
If I had had a new grandchild, at a similar age to this couple, there is no way I could be the same sort of grandparent I was to my own when I was in my late 40's.
People wind down physically....its a fact of life. Nature knows best.
It may seem unfair that men can still father kids naturally well into older age, but like HT said, they are not the ones who do all the hard work.

For one Syl they don't have to give birth, don't reckon older bodies could bounce back from that. I couldn't, the very thought.

magica wrote:For one Syl they don't have to give birth, don't reckon older bodies could bounce back from that. I couldn't, the very thought.

OMG....I have got tears in my eyes just thinking about it.