Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up with established older parents (mom was 52 and dad 57) and I loved it. Like another poster wrote, my mom and dad were so chill! I was 39 and 41 when I had my kids and also felt ready and relaxed about having them. My dad was retired when I started playing sports and came to every single one of my practices and games. All my friends knew him. My mom continued to work but only part time (therapist) and always had time to be completely involved in my school and PTA. I hope to be the same with my kids.

Your mother was 52 when you were born? Did your parents adopt?

Yes! Obviously!! Should I have mentioned that?

No, it was clear. PP is just trying to start something.

I’m the pp and I wasn’t trying to start anything and don’t even understand what that means. It was a sincere question. The op is about any downsides of waiting to ttc until age 35 or later.

I love my kid. Started ttc at 34 and finally gave birth at 38. If it’s just due to financial issues, which I think is what op mentioned, I would not wait. You don’t know how long it will take.

Here we go with this same tired old topic again.

Look, the bottom line is simple: it's better to have kids young. Biology prefers it for a reason.

Of course older mothers are going to disagree, because they have to validate their choices or circumstances. All of this baloney about the benefits of having kids older -- being financially secure, having fun in your youth, etc. -- benefit the parents, not the kids. If, for example, you're a struggling grad student, having a kid doesn't hurt the kid because your future earnings potential is presumably high.

That's what we did. We got married in our early 20s, got our kids out of the way while going to grad school, and had all four before we were 30. Now our kids are full grown, and the parents of their kids' friends are closer to our age than theirs. And our kids didn't suffer economically, academically, or socially because we didn't wait until the timing was "perfect" by DCUM's definition. To the contrary, they thrived.

Anonymous wrote:People on this board so blithely say that people can have kids into their 40s. I mean, obviously they can. But it's so, so sad. None of the kids of such people have grandparents (or won't have them for long). And those people won't be involved with their grandchildren in turn. It's a crazy huge cultural shift that no one acknowledges.

It's more than just about grandparents, too. You're setting your children up to lose you so young. It's impossibly twisted and I wish people would think twice about having kids so late. But this board is all sunshine and roses, even for 45 yos (!!).

100%

People on this board so blithely say that people can have kids into their 40s. I mean, obviously they can. But it's so, so sad. None of the kids of such people have grandparents (or won't have them for long). And those people won't be involved with their grandchildren in turn. It's a crazy huge cultural shift that no one acknowledges.

It's more than just about grandparents, too. You're setting your children up to lose you so young. It's impossibly twisted and I wish people would think twice about having kids so late. But this board is all sunshine and roses, even for 45 yos (!!).

Anonymous wrote:Due to financial issues we will be TTC post 35. Assuming we are successful, I am wondering about the ramifications of waiting till older to have children. What has your experience been like?

if you are over 30, don't wait because of financial issues. it's not worth it.

Anonymous wrote:Had my youngest at 38. (Older was at age 31.) It sucked ass. Would never recommend it

Are you 12?

I had kids at 36 and 38. On purpose - husband and I were already together in our 20s. I just wasn’t ready for ages and ages and he was ok waiting. I didn’t have any issues getting pregnant or getting back into shape. I have two cute preschoolers and zero regrets.

I'm not sure why OP thinks that those of us who had kids in our late 30s/early 40s CHOSE to do it that way. Sometimes that's just the cards you are given. My choices were not have kids in my 20s vs late 30s, my choices were have kids in my late 30s or don't have kids at all. I am happy with my choice to have kids in my late 30s.

I had all three of mine when I was between 35 and 39.5 years old. No miscarriages, all healthy kids, all relatively easy pregnancies (minus the hyperemesis). I don’t regret the timing at all. In an ideal world, I’d like to be an involved grandparent, and having kids later lowers those chances, but what can I do? Also, the trade off is that I think I’m a pretty good parent, and I’m not sure that would have been the case if I’d had my kids when I was 10 years younger.

I had my one and only at age 42 and he is the best thing that ever happened to me, was pregnant two other times but miscarried. I have no regrets, and also nothing to compare it to, so it is what is is. The thing is, there's really nothing you can do it about it now, so instead of worrying about regrets, just acknowledge that there are plusses and minuses to everything and decide whether or not you have kids. Also, in the DC area, 35 is not old, I'd say I'm only about 3-4 years older on average than my son's parents and I know several parents older than me.

Had kids at 35 and 38 with none of the typical concerns about their development or my health being an issue. They're elementary age now, and so much fun. The only downside is that I might not see as much of their lives (and my eventual presumed grandchildrens' lives) as I wish I could, but that's generally going to be the case no matter what. I really enjoyed my carefree 20s and early 30s and got to explore and do a lot of things that I couldn't have reasonably done if I had greater attachments/responsibilities than I did at the time, and those experiences also got me to a point in my career where I'm very comfortable and happy and sort of on "cruise control" professionally so I can focus more on my family. And that's the upside, we're in a much better space financially than we would have been if we'd had kids younger, so we're able to do a lot more for them in terms of extracurriculars and travel and so on without financial stress.

Basically there's no one answer/path... IF I could have been in the same professional and financial place at a younger age, having my family younger might have appealed, but the grass is always greener, because I enjoyed traveling and doing a variety of activities (especially those that pushed my physical/athletic limits) at that age that I won't be able to do as easily when I'm older.

Anonymous wrote:Had my youngest at 38. (Older was at age 31.) It sucked ass. Would never recommend it

Did exactly this and it's been amazing.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, having had our first child at age 27, you'll be closer in age to the other new parents than I was.

In this area, your age won't even be noticed

+1. I’d just do it, OP. You might regret that you didn’t have them sooner but that’s better than never having the family you wanted.

Honestly, having had our first child at age 27, you'll be closer in age to the other new parents than I was.

In this area, your age won't even be noticed

I am an immigrant from a country where it's typical to marry and have children in your early 20s, even in educated families. In my generation college was free and grandparent assistance taken for granted. I'm nearing 50 with my youngest still in diapers. Most of my classmates have children who are graduating college or getting married already. It had no discernible effect on their education or earning power. I will be honest and say I sometimes envy this path; the fact that they will be around for so much more of their children's lives, and the fact that they are still young but largely carefree already. It is what it is.