Jenni Murray on why elderly parents of surrogate babies are selfish and cruel

Four years ago, at the age of 71, my heart was broken by the death of my 16-year-old Chihuahua, Butch. He had been my best-ever dog and his absence was unbearable.

I still had Madge who was eight and Frieda who was heading for 19, but I knew she couldn’t last much longer. I never keep only one dog. They need a companion, so, concerned that Madge would be lonely when Frieda was gone, I told my son, Ed, the vet, that I was planning to find a puppy. His response was not supportive.

“Mum, have you gone completely out of your mind? You’re going to get a puppy, at your age?”

Now imagine what his reaction would have been if I’d announced I was planning to use a surrogate to have a baby! I suspect he might have come round and shot me, and he would, frankly, have been justified in doing so.

If, though, a baby had been my plan, it would not, I’ve been alarmed to discover, have been in any way unusual. Cafcass, the government agency that represents children’s interests in the courts, revealed that between 2020 and 2025 several men over 80 applied to be legally recognised as the parents of surrogate babies.

There were also applications from men aged 70 to 79, and women from 60 to 80, 43 men in their sixties – and 416 requests to adopt from men and women in their fifties. There is, to my amazement, no legal age limit for intended parents in the UK, and applications from older people are rising.

You would think that any court asked to deal with such seemingly ridiculous applications would simply say no. But that has not been the case.

In March a husband and wife, both aged 72, were granted a parental order to become the legal parents of a 14-month-old boy born through surrogacy. The long-retired couple had paid a young woman in California £150k to be impregnated by the husband’s sperm and a donor egg.

After the baby was born in January 2023 they applied for the parental order which has now been granted.

Unimaginable, isn’t it? But it happened. The parents of that 14-month-old boy will be 89 by the time he reaches 18, assuming, of course, they survive for that long. Do these people have no respect for the women they are using to make their babies?

It couldn’t be done in this country because paying hefty wages to surrogates is illegal, but elsewhere it’s perfectly possible to find a poor young woman whose womb can be rented for a substantial sum. What could be more abusive than using a pension lump sum to pay a woman to endure pregnancy, childbirth and then separation from the infant as he is placed in the arms of Darby and Joan.

Then what of that poor child? Some of us are perfectly fit at the age of 72 and determined to make the most of our retirement, but fit enough to care for a baby? Will these ancient parents be patient when a toddler with the terrible twos goes nuts in the supermarket?

How easy will it be for them to play football in the garden, spend endless evenings reading stories, help with homework, teach moral standards suitable for such a distant generation? There is no greater responsibility than the raising of a child and I’m sure grandparents will say, “But we do all that stuff. We look after our children’s children, and we have plenty of energy for them”.

Ah, yes, that’s all very well, but as a grandparent you know you can hand them back if it all gets too much. This trend has appalled me. These old people are causing a child to be born to a poor woman who doesn’t want it and using their money to satisfy themselves with no care for her or for the welfare of that child.

It’s the most selfish, careless, cruel behaviour and it makes me ashamed of my age group. The UK courts should not permit it.

As for the puppy? Minnie lights up my life and we’re growing old together. If I go first, I’ve arranged loving care for her in my absence, something that’s much easier to do with a dog than a child.

So I had not gone out of my mind when I took in my little companion “at my age” but a baby in my seventies would have been insane.