To be absolutely furious with my father?

I’m coming up for 65. I wouldn’t mind so much if my knees worked!

But it is a long time ago! My dad was born in 1925. My mum was born in 1943 (huge age gap relationship but they were devoted to each other!)

You can't be that old @WearyAuldWumman? I'm 61 and I fucking hate it!

Some women go through menopause late so maybe she’s one of them?

How bloody selfish of them to be having babies at their age! My parents were 40 & 45 and I ended up losing one of them at 26 and my childhood was thoroughly boring as they were knackered by toddlerhood! So incredibly selfish

Oh come off it. Let's stop pretending that the OP having children in her earlier 20s is the same as her father having children in his 50s. She at least has made plans. Her father, who statistically is much less likely to make it to his children's adulthood has not made any plans.

Doesn't seem that long ago when you get to my age. (My parents were born in the mid 1920s.)

Ain't they stupid!!!

You shouldn't feel guilt! I had my youngest when I was 40, and do I feel guilt? Do I fuck! Early 20s now and has had (and still has!) the best of everything that love and money could provide! I went through hell to have him including two heartbreaking miscarriages and I have no regrets and neither should you! x

The only children that I would have taken on would have been my youngest sister's two, and that's because our two families have grown up close together, and the cousins are very close. I know my sister would have taken mine on if need be. The other sister is LC/NC with most of our family, for reasons best known only to herself, but I wouldn't take her boys on because I don't even know them. Her DH's family seems to be close to them so it wouldn't be an issue.

Equally I wouldn't have taken on DH's sister's child, because I don't know him either - but I am sure that plenty of her DP's relatives would have done it because they are much closer.

Fuck it, I probably wouldn't have left a distressed, bereaved child to go into care, but equally TF, I will never be in that position!

So then surely you can understand childfree relatives might have the same reservations?

Who are these people who would love to take the children in? Children over age 5 are very unlikely to be adopted. They're probably going to move around the care system until 16, more than likely be split up.from siblings and then be out on their own

On average based on life expectancy at birth.
Most people who died young died as babies or young children
Once you made it to age 5 your life expectancy wasn't that bad. There are plenty of people who died in their 80s in graveyards

You wouldn't know because you would be dead!

I think a few posters think they’re in that
film with Kate Hudson! Real life isn’t quite that simple.

The 1930s was nearly 100 years ago!

Sorry but if you're child free you have no.idea of what's involved in raising a child. Particularly a bereaved child who doesn't want to live with you. It will be a massive undertaking.

That's easy to say when you aren't being asked to!

The thing is, you can very much be there for your so much younger siblings when they need a mother figure and their own isn't around any more. But you can do that without bringing them up!

"Tak[ing] them on without a second thought" is not likely to end well!!

Most sensible people would make a considered decision taking into account all the pros and cons, and how they would deal with them.

Who's to say even your own biological children "will give a shit about you when you get old"?!!

It's not a transaction. You don't assume guardianship on the basis of what that relationship might offer you in the future!! Or you shouldn't!

TF I will never be in that position!! I never made provision for my children because I knew that one of my two sisters would definitely have stepped up. DH's sister, no. Wouldn't have wanted her to either.

My problem was that I didn't see eye-to-eye on childrearing with either of them. One was a teacher who thought she knew all about children because she had taught them but not reared them and had some very unrealistic notions. The other was way too lax but would probably have been more loving and that was my leaning. There was no-one else.

When the eldest turned 18 I was reassured that it was no longer a worry. Eldest was very mature, the second less than 2 years younger, and I knew between them they would look out for the youngest.

Shit happens though! Of my two oldest friends, one was an orphan by the age of 19 with a younger sibling just 14. The other was an orphan by the age of 21.

Are you able to comprehend that different families have different sibling relationships, and that it's not all about you?

TF all my relationships are uncomplicated in terms of parenting. Anything else is a different matter!

I'm having difficulty comprehending this post - it is making zero sense to me for a number of reasons.

Can I just say, yes, it's the dad and stepmum's decision over what they do in regards to their own fertility/childbearing. I don't think the OP has questioned that, fucking insane as it may be.

You "absolutely NEVER have a say" over whether or not you get saddled with the outcome of that fertility. To suggest anything else is batshit. Nobody wants a say over their fucking fertility - and in actual fact, they aren't "fertile" anyway if they have had to have IVF!!!

And I have now read your post several times, and it is still not making any sense!

I can't make head nor tail of your use of "there"!

Why is it sad? Shared experiences are a huge part of a sibling relationship.

I don’t spend much time with my sister independently of my parents. But there are things I can say to her and no one else, and vice versa, because I know she will instantly get it. She’ll send me a Facebook post or meme that she knows will remind me of our parents when we were growing up, or of something that happened in 1987 - things that would be meaningless to her friends or even her husband.

That’s what counts in a relationship. Otherwise we’re just two people with similar DNA - in the same way I think of my aunt’s children almost like older siblings, yet my uncle’s children are little more than acquaintances, even though the degree of familial connection is identical.

With all due respect, you made a 'theoretical' decision. You based your decision on whether or not to become a mum on the basis of what you thought it might involve, your perceived expectations, the experiences of others. And that's fine. None of us know what we're doing when we decide to be a mum or not to be a mum, because obviously we've never done it.

I could see a situation where a childfree person might be guilted into taking care of a relative's children, because they didn't feel they could say no, because they felt they would be judged, because of the potential experiences of a child in care or because they were pushed into it. They would genuinely have no clue about the enormity of what they were taking on, because they've never done it.

However, someone who is already a parent, no matter the ages of their own child or children, does have some concept of the huge responsibility that is childrearing.

It's a weighty decision for everyone. However, I would argue that a parent is more likely to fully understand the sacrifices involved, because of their own experience. That's not to say it's not also a weighty decision for someone who has decided that this is not a path they want to take in life for their own reasons, yet having decided they don't want children to then find themselves 'forced' to rear someone else's.

My guess is that the OP has actually put some thought into what would happen to her children in a catastrophe and has asked trusted people who’ve agreed to the responsibility to be their legal guardians.

Most people wouldn’t want children taken into care, but you have to be realistic and not just assume that someone can look after them.

Interestingly 50s were old age for the vast majority of human existence, since on average people didn't start making it to 60 until the 1930s.

But would your whole plan be "well X will have them" and then not give it another thought? Because that is apparently the fathers plan.

As I said above, this isnt actually about what will happen to the kids because its very unlikely (although yes, possible) that these kids will lose both parents while still under 18. Its about the fact that the OP's father decided to have a second family when age related illness and death is a risk, and his only plan is "Oh well the first kid I had, that I never really bothered that much about and I havent actually asked, will take them in". That is not a plan!