Being An Older FTM

[Anonymous]

I had my first at 34 and my second two (twins) at 36. I am older than most of my older son’s parent cohort by a couple of years but it really hasn’t made a difference. I’m pretty healthy and energetic generally so I think that helps. And while I’m older than most, there are definitely otely a handful of moms older than me. Plus, while I think 30th might be an average age for the first kid, many have multiples spread out in their 30s. I don’t think you will feel as out of place as you think you will. Ages will be all over that map. I have one close friend who had her one and only at age 42 and another at age 48.

[Anonymous]

I was 38 when I had my first child and we're now trying again for a second now that I'm 40. My age has never been a concern and I don't feel like an "old" mom. Moms come in many shapes and sizes, and that includes ages. I don't pay a lot of attention to the ages of other mothers, but I think they vary quite a bit and 38 will certainly not be the oldest. OP, I have to agree that it seems like you're making a mountain out of what might not even be a molehill. Just do you and enjoy your kid. It sounds like your timing was right for you, which is all that matters.

[Anonymous]

I was 41 and 44. No biggie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is encouraging. Still, what do you think of first-time mom at 45 with 61-year-old husband?…Trying to gauge what energy levels etc are going to look like down the road…

What is your plan for parenthood? At 45 I assume a natural pregnancy isn't something you're counting on. Adoption or surrogacy can be a real energy-sapping journey, but that's not meant to dissuade the effort. As for your ages and energy levels: I'm 40 and DH is 50. We have 2 kids and while we both have what I'd consider to be above average energy levels for our ages and we're in great health, it's hard. If you're going to try for a kid I'd do so asap and assume you're only going to have one. And be prepared for how you'd manage special needs, health crises, etc.

[Anonymous]

We had kids in late thirties to forties. We've had a great experience so far, other than we both struggled with the newborn stage and needed quite a bit of help. Toddlers to teenagers have been great. There are so many older parents here, so we never feel out of place. We also both stay active and haven't slowed our kids down. We've been very intentional about saving early for college, weddings and other young adult things knowing that we'll probably retire when they are teenagers. They know we've put in our time so we don't feel like we'd be setting a bad example by retiring while they are still at home.

[Anonymous]

I’m in my early/mid thirties and am good friends with a mom in the class who had her kids close together around 40! She’s great! I don’t really think about the age of other parents- nobody looks out of place in their forties in my circle, even though most people probably started having kids in early 30s. You will especially find parents who may be on their second and third kids and they’ll be right around your age. Don’t sweat it or let it impact your experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I had my first at 38 and my second at 40. I have found that, having lived a very full life before entering motherhood a bonus.

No regrets. I never feel like I lost out on anything.

You have the added benefit of a secure marriage, where you got to be a couple for awhile. You're more mature and can mange the energy drain that all parents experience by bringing in help that you can now afford.

I would not have been the parent I am today if I had become a mom earlier in my life. I admire those who could and have done well with it. Growing up with your children sounds wonderful. I don't envy it or judge it.

We all have our own path. This was mine, and I'm content.


An added benefit of being a couple for awhile? She just said she met her husband 3 years ago. My husband and I dated from ages 28-33, got married, and had a kid when I was 37. That is an established relationship.

[Anonymous]

I do not think 38 is too old at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like on this board anyone who had a kid before they were 30 are bashed since there's a large contingent of older moms here.

This!

[Anonymous]

Not old in this area. I had my first at 28 and was treated like a baby.

[Anonymous]

In DC you won’t be the outcast, the younger moms are the minorities. I had my first at 29 and The majority of moms in my daughters grade are older than me. I’m usually the youngest by several years. Nobody really cares though.

[Anonymous]

I didn't meet my husband til I was 42. Had my one and only at 45. Kid is now 6. Feel fine; no different from how I felt 10 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pregnant with my first child at 38. I didn't meet my husband until I was 35. We are both very excited but I do feel discouraged when I see posts bashing older moms. I think many would agree that it would have been wonderful to have children soon but I was not willing to have a child with someone I wasn't sure about. I waited until I found a man who is a wonderful husband and who will be a great father. That was more important to me than having kids at a young age. We are also older and won't feel like we are missing out on anything as young parents ( two of my siblings were teen parents) and we are financially stable. We have the ability to pay for any form of childcare or for meet quit my job and stay at home while we have kids. We won't have the same stresses we would have had if we had met 10 years earlier. I do know I may not have as much energy as I did when I was younger but I feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Any other older FTM parents feel this way?

Well, in this area your scenario is much more common than not.

I too am an older mother who had children at 37, 41 and 44. In retrospect, that was late, and benefits outweigh the advantages only in the sense that having a baby late is better than not having a baby at all, but if the choice was to have a baby at 31 or 41, then the benefits of 31 outweigh 41, no question.

The thing is - and don't take this the wrong way - you lack perspective. Because you're still pregnant and while you're thinking ahead to baby stage, you are probably not thinking ahead to elementary years, teenage years and your own aging in the context of having children later in life. Especially if you are planning to have more than one child. Our time with our grandparents was reduced; two are already dead and two remaining ones are 80+ and unlikely to spend much time with the kids. The children won't have the benefit of much time with the grandparents, and vice versa; plus, we are likely to spread ourselves thin caring for ailing, aging parents while our children are still in the age of high needs. (And this scenario is likely to repeat itself when we are aging and ailing, and our children are probably just getting started). Children are expensive, much more expensive the older they get. It goes on and on.

But as I said, if the choice is baby at 38 or no baby at all, I say go for baby. It is what it is.

THIS.
You are pregnant at your age. It is what it is.