Adopting newborn at 52 years old?

[Anonymous]

It's not for me, but it wasn't my choice.

The thing is... a person can live to be 90 or 95 (or older). Or die of natural causes when they are 25, 30 or 35. You never know what it's going to be.

I do hope Hoda has the foresight to set up a strong trust for the child - who will be the guardian, etc. Presumably, she'll have a nanny or similar arrangement just based on her work schedule. Wiki says she is dating Joel Schiffman. Is he also adopting the baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unfair to the child? BS! I wish she would adopt me! Americans are so damned ageist, especially against women.

Nature is pretty ageist too, I suppose. The average age of menopause is 51.

God I hope that's true! I'm 50 and can't wait for menopause, lol.

Hoda is living with her boyfriend of 4 years. She's not entirely single here. I don't know what role the boyfriend wants to play, although he's going to be living the life of dad at least for now. That's really the only thing that gives me pause. What does she foresee as the stable family relationships for this baby? Will it be weird that this man lives in the house but didn't want to be part of the adoption? The baby will someday wonder why.

Other than that, 52 doesn't seem old to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have just been chosen by a birthmother to adopt her baby boy due in 5 weeks. We are 48 and 50. This is after a long process of miscarriage and IVF. We are healthy, take care of ourselves and have the means. Are we too old? As far as we can tell the pregnancy is healthy and so is our soon to be little boy. We've gotten medical records and have email exchanges and Skype meetings with our birthmother.

It's not about the pregnancy or infant being healthy, it's about *you and your husband* being healthy, of course. You're being obtuse.

Its actually about both. If child turns out to have SN and needs life long care and parent/s die at 70 when child is 20 how is that for the child. Its an issue.

We were told we were getting a healthy child. We have medical records and much much more. Reality is birthfather is a huge drug addict (they lied about it) and who knows if/what the birthmom used. Child has SN. We are very grateful for him but we spend every day in expensive therapies. I cannot work because of it. Adoption is't always as you are told. It was not for us. We had what seemed like the perfect adoption. Its far from that when the truth came out. I'd do it again for this child, but just know things are not always as they appear (sometimes they are).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Other than that, 52 doesn't seem old to me.

People talk about Millennials who don't want to grow up, won't move out of their parents houses... but 52 is literally the tail end of the baby boomers, or very very old end of Gen X. Sorry, we don't all get to stay young forever.

[Anonymous]

I dont have a problem with it, good for her!

[Anonymous]

Did you ask the same question of Donald Trump? His youngest son was born when Trump was almost 60.

[Anonymous]

Well seeing that in almost all domestic open adoptions these days, the BIRTH MOTHER gets to choose the adoptive parents and make a plan for her baby, I don't think anybody else gets to have an opinion on it. For her own reasons (maybe her own parents were really young, she wants a mature parent, maybe her parents were in a dysfunctional or abusive relationships and she thinks a single parent is better, maybe she and Hoda like the same ice cream flavor, who knows?), the birth parent chose Hoda to be the adoptive mother. That's her right as the birth mother. What anyone else thinks doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have just been chosen by a birthmother to adopt her baby boy due in 5 weeks. We are 48 and 50. This is after a long process of miscarriage and IVF. We are healthy, take care of ourselves and have the means. Are we too old? As far as we can tell the pregnancy is healthy and so is our soon to be little boy. We've gotten medical records and have email exchanges and Skype meetings with our birthmother.

There's 2 of you, and the younger is 4 years younger than Hoda, which isn't insignificant. It would still be too old for me personally, but I think it's much more reasonable when there are 2 parents. I wish you nothing but the best - congratulations!!

as someone who is 48, I think it is a great age to be a parent. I think I'd be a better parent today than I was 10+ years ago. Good luck, PP!

[Anonymous]

think it's our culture, too. I thought I heard that if you wanted to adopt from China, you were given preferential treatment if you were older (like 50 years old) than if you were younger. they consider being older a huge benefit to being a parent.

[Anonymous]

Don't judge, especially if you consider yourself "pro-choice".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: think it's our culture, too. I thought I heard that if you wanted to adopt from China, you were given preferential treatment if you were older (like 50 years old) than if you were younger. they consider being older a huge benefit to being a parent.

Wrong.

Single women can't have a male partner living in the home and must be under 45.

The maximum combined age of married adoptive parents can be up to 90 to adopt a child under 4 years old, up to 100 for a child 4-8 years old and 110 years for children 8 years or older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only annoying thing about this to me is that it's her fame/money that made this happen. You and I would never be able to adopt a healthy newborn as a single person at 52.
I have several friends waiting for newborns for years and years and they're under 40 and married and financially stable. It's exceedingly difficult to adopt a healthy newborn in this country.

Hoda's baby appears to be African-American, which I'm guessing has would mean less waiting than trying to adopt a white newborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have just been chosen by a birthmother to adopt her baby boy due in 5 weeks. We are 48 and 50. This is after a long process of miscarriage and IVF. We are healthy, take care of ourselves and have the means. Are we too old? As far as we can tell the pregnancy is healthy and so is our soon to be little boy. We've gotten medical records and have email exchanges and Skype meetings with our birthmother.

It's not about the pregnancy or infant being healthy, it's about *you and your husband* being healthy, of course. You're being obtuse.

Its actually about both. If child turns out to have SN and needs life long care and parent/s die at 70 when child is 20 how is that for the child. Its an issue.

We were told we were getting a healthy child. We have medical records and much much more. Reality is birthfather is a huge drug addict (they lied about it) and who knows if/what the birthmom used. Child has SN. We are very grateful for him but we spend every day in expensive therapies. I cannot work because of it. Adoption is't always as you are told. It was not for us. We had what seemed like the perfect adoption. Its far from that when the truth came out. I'd do it again for this child, but just know things are not always as they appear (sometimes they are).

We were 51 and 46 when our twin children (via donor egg) were born. Our parents were 85, 80 and 79 when the children were born and are still alive, healthy and supportive at 91, 86 and 85 (my father in law passed away from a genetic heart disorder that was not passed on to any of his children). We have a healthy, long-lived family. I used to work with a guy who died of a heart attack at age 45 when his daughter was 12. His family had a history of heart issues and his father also died before the age of 50. If you evaluated him at at 33 when his daughter was born vs me when my children were born, I think my family health history makes me a far safer candidate to live to my children's adulthood than him.

It's not always about age. It's about the parents' health and family history. That will give you a better picture of if a parent is more likely to be around until the child's adulthood.

That said, another issue is that if the child were to end up with SN, an older wealthy parent is also going to be a better choice than a younger, less financially stable parent. SN often needs resources to help treat and/or manage the SN. Having enough financial resources to afford expensive specialists, treatments, equipment, or conveniences without budgetary concerns can significantly help in raising a SN child.

[Anonymous]

I think the single mother part is a little too risky for me personally if I was in this situation. If I had a partner (even my same age) the chances of one of us living till mid 70s and staying in good health is pretty high. Now take away one person in that equation and now you are banking on staying in good health till your mid 70s while parenting alone...a little too risky for me. I also think its just a "tad" bit too old. I would maybe go for it still at 47 or 48.

[Anonymous]

Meh, with that level of wealth "unfair" starts to become relative. I think it sounds downright exhausting though! I don't want to deal with the teen years and hormones when I am 65-72!