The judge’s poignant 12-page ruling brought to the light how the 72-year-olds tragically lost their son in 1993 after he sadly passed away from cancer just shy of his 27th birthday
An elderly couple in their 70s have been granted to become legal parents of a 14-month-old baby boy born through surrogacy – after their adult son tragically died of cancer.
The two 72-year-olds, loving custodians of the boy since his arrival, successfully petitioned the High Court for a parental order in July 2024, which they obtained in March.
Following a ruling last month, Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles said the husband and wife had used his sperm and a donor egg to conceive the child, paying more than £150,000.
The judge’s poignant 12-page ruling brought to light the couple’s past loss of a son born through IVF in 1993, who tragically passed away from cancer just shy of his 27th birthday, noting they were “adamant” that adopting B wasn’t an effort to replace their late son.
READ MORE: South African mum who sold daughter, 6, ‘for her eyes and skin’ gets life sentence
In her written verdict, Mrs Justice Knowles confirmed an ‘appropriate’ safety net has been arranged for the child should either parent pass away or become disabled before he comes of age, branding little B a “much loved and cherished little boy”.
She further clarified that she wasn’t passing ethical judgment on conceiving through surrogacy at an older age, but emphasised the court’s duty to ensure the child’s prospective care is secure “in case the worst should happen.”
Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles pointed out: “It is an undeniable fact that, when B goes to school at the age of five, they will likely both be 76 years old and both will likely be 82 years old when B starts secondary school. Put starkly, Mr and Mrs K will both be 89 years old when B reaches his majority.”
In a heart-wrenching turn of events, Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles has acknowledged the tough reality facing a boy adopted by an older couple, remarking, “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.”
Despite the concerns, Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles declared it in the child’s best interest for the retired couple to be his legal guardians, stating, “The absence of a parental order would deny B the social and emotional benefits of the formal and informal recognition of his relationship and family life with Mr and Mrs K.”
Additionally, she emphasised the potential adversity the child might face, expressing, “That experience may strike B at a time in his childhood when he is ill-prepared to understand or come to terms with it, upending his daily life and placing him in the care of adults to whom he is not emotionally close.”
Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles soberly reflected on the unpredictability of advancing years, cautioning, “No matter how fit a person of Mr and Mrs K’s age may be now, health and life itself are undoubtedly at the mercy of an ageing process which becomes more ever more cruel and capricious as the years go by.”
READ MORE: ‘I made one change to my meals and lost weight, felt fuller and cut down my caffeine’
