Want a baby but not in the best place financially..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think they should have children together because they can't even commit to each other.

Stepmom here and plus 1. Tread carefully or you will be back here bitching about your custody agreement in 6 years. Not complaining about my situation at all - I am the one person in it who had the luxury of choosing it - but there are some very real issues that arise when you parent a child out of marriage and they have potential to be unpleasant not only for your child, but for you. Wait until you are in a committed (and I mean married) relationship.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say that there are myriad reasons why you probably should wait in your situation (a lot of it has to do with ensuring you and your BF are in this thing for the long haul as parents/partners)

BUT at the same time I am going to play devil's advocate and say that people in this area are a little jaded on financial realities. a couple making 70K per year is hardly financially unable to have a child! The "living paycheck to paycheck" part probably means you will need some lifestyle adjustments to happen ASAP so that you can begin making a savings/cushion for your self. (size of your apt and area you live in is the biggie here, but also debt restructuring of student loans and/or other debt, etc is probably something that you should do and put the small surplus in savings).

But lets get real, a couple with 70K a year income is not hovering above the poverty line. I had parents who had to be financially austere, lots of people do. It becomes eerily close to social engineering when we put numbers on who should and should not have a baby at these levels to me.

I don't think they shouldn't have kids because they make 70k per yer. I think they shouldn't because they live paycheck to paycheck. Get your finances in order before choosing to have a kid. That's all.

The problem is that they make $70K on two incomes and after the baby is born, they are likely to be living on $35K because the OP has mentioned that she would like to SAH with their child. If she does go back to work, they'll have to make room for a significant amount of childcare. Even inexpensive in-home daycares in this area tend to be in the ballpark of $250-300/wk for infants, which is $1000-1200 of childcare/month before they even tack on the diapers, formula (if for some reason she cannot BF), clothing, supplies, etc. That's a lot of expenses to be adding on to a paycheck-to-paycheck household.

I'm the earlier poster who suggested that she start saving $50-100 per week NOW and creating an emergency fund of money they can use to help with supplies and such. It will also get them acclimated to living on a lower amount each month, which they'll need to do once they add a third person to the household. If they can't get used to living on less and making compromises now, then they really won't be able to make such compromises when they have a baby and will find themselves quickly becoming stressed out over money that they don't have.

[Anonymous]

Ew, get married before you have a baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree. Not everyone meets the criteria listed and still manage to have kids and survive. I posted before about being a single mom who had no job and had to temporarily move back home to have my child. Ideal? Nope. But I've never met anyone with an ideal life. Ever. The people whose lives seems ideal from the outside rarely are on the inside. I would suggest the OP save money diligently for the next few yrs and then reevaluate.

Allegedly "smug" poster here. You'll notice I didn't suggest that this was a list of criteria for people having kids. I said these things are what helped make it work for us when we chose to have a child at the age of the OP. Obviously, everyone's situation is different. Single moms by choice will have very different considerations, as will people who meet their true loves at age 35--of course I wouldn't suggest that they wait 10 years before having a child. And once a woman is pregnant, or a mother, she has to move forward and work with the situation she has, whatever that is.

However, I'm thinking that the OP is hoping for more than "surviving," especially since kids are still hypothetical for her. I would have written an entirely different post (or not responded) to a thread by someone in her same life situation but already pregnant. Right now, though, she is still at a point in her life where she has great leeway in figuring out what she thinks HER ideal life would look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ew, get married before you have a baby.

Ew? What, are you 12?

[Anonymous]

I think it's sort of trashy to have a kid before you get married, particularly if you can't afford one on one salary, or you don't have substantial family support. If you make a baby with someone you haven't committed to 100%, you are giving them a permanent position in your life. It's a recipe for disaster. And if you realize later that he wasn't marriage or partner material, well, tough cookies, he's the father of your child and you have to deal with him... forever.

[Anonymous]

Or not when he decides to skip out on his responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or not when he decides to skip out on his responsibilities.

Right, but then his absence would still be a critical part of your child's identity. So in that case, his absence would be with the mother and child forever.

[Anonymous]

Why are you all assuming OP is with a shitty boyfriend? Jaded? And it's not "trashy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are you all assuming OP is with a shitty boyfriend? Jaded? And it's not "trashy".

He's not necessarily shitty, he just may not be right for her. She doesn't want to marry him, but if she has a child with him, then he's going to be a permanent fixture in her life.

And yeah, a lot of people out there still think having children out of wedlock is trashy, so there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you all assuming OP is with a shitty boyfriend? Jaded? And it's not "trashy".

He's not necessarily shitty, he just may not be right for her. She doesn't want to marry him, but if she has a child with him, then he's going to be a permanent fixture in her life.

And yeah, a lot of people out there still think having children out of wedlock is trashy, so there's that.

It's absolutely trashy. You will be judged, and so will your child, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Judge away. People will always find something to judge you for. Just a little statistic for readers:

http://news.yahoo.com/40-percent-babies-born-unwed-mothers-mich-study-184500198.html


So, your kids might be in class or even playing with (shocker!) kids who were born out of wedlock. What will you do then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge away. People will always find something to judge you for. Just a little statistic for readers:

http://news.yahoo.com/40-percent-babies-born-unwed-mothers-mich-study-184500198.html


So, your kids might be in class or even playing with (shocker!) kids who were born out of wedlock. What will you do then?

I would think that their parents are trashy.

[Anonymous]

What about single mothers who choose to marry and procreate wih scumbags, only to have the guy leave never to be seen again. Then those single mothers are seen as "strong" and "been through so much", but a woman in a healthy loving (but unmarried) relationship with a child is trashy??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thank you all for your advice.
I'm confident in our relationship and I just am in no rush to get married. If it happens, great, but I've just never been a wedding/marriage person. As one PP noted, it makes it easier for the guy to pull a "I'm outta here"- I get that, but that wouldn't happen. And if it did, so be it.

That being said: In my heart, I want a baby. In my mind, we need to wait. Get my act together and our 'ducks in a row', as they say here on DCUM.

Good for you, OP. PP 10:34 again. Although it matters less now, when you have a child, you might want to consider going for a courthouse marriage. The state of Maryland has entrenched in law over 330 different laws that grant rights to married couples that are not necessarily granted to unmarried common-law marriages like yours. Among those include the right to hospital visitation should either of you become hospitalized, the right to make certain legal decisions for the other including decision making rights for your children. If you are not married, the parent who doesn't share the same last name with the child may not have full rights to the child including the ability to direct care for the child, the ability to take the child over state lines (in certain cases), even the right to custody of the child. All of these are extreme cases, but there are many, many situations where the protection of marriage can make a huge difference in both your care for each other and your care for your child. So, if and when you are ready to have a child, consider getting married for the legal issues, even if you don't need it, in general.

I was just like you OP but then once I had the chid I realized the importance of marriage for all of the reasons PP mentioned (and then some). A child is a lifetime commitment and you should not have one with someone that does not want to commit to you even if (like in my case) you could afford to care for your child all on your own. Marriage matters.