Parents Ages

depends on the age of the child and the fitness and frame of mind of the parents. Some 50 something as very outgoing and open and sprite others less so. FYI I am a 50 year old woman with a 7 year old son.

I wouldn’t, my parents are 61 and 65.
My mother has been left disabled after a car accident 2 years ago and my dad developed early onset Alzheimer’s at 59. I’m in my late 30s and it’s hard caring for them, it would be awful if I was a teenager or in my early 20s

No. There's a reason nature stops us having kids in our mid 40's-50's. There's lots of couples who need a surrogate for medical reasons eg born without a womb or same sex couples, leaving it too late or having a designer baby accessory isn't a valid reason

Ime (quite considerable) even fit and healthy people get frail in their 80s. A vast no. dont get that far, or need considerable care. As someone doing that caring in my 40s, I wouldnt have coped earlier in life -esp not in my 20s (and watching your parents deteriorate is no fun even if they don't require care).

So no, I'd not carry a surrogate baby for a couple of those ages.

"Parents can die at any age"

Have you not heard of probability?

I think above 50 is too old. I think it ok for 40 somethings who are healthy for their age. I'm 49 and have a teenager who functions at baby/ toddler level and I manage ok.

On the contrary I think in this case it is very much your judgement to make.Personally I think having a child at such an advanced age is selfish and unfair on the child.They would be as old or older than most kid's grandparents and the child will likely feel embarrassed by that.Not to mention the obvious that they won't have the energy that a younger couple would have.Then there's the fact that when the child's around the age when he/she may be starting a family they'll have elderly parents to cope with(probably alone),instead of the support and help from them that most of us are lucky to have.

You do an amazing thing but this couple are way too old to have children.

The child could become a carer before it reaches double figures and will certainly lose their parents at a very young age.

I absolutely would not carry a child for this couple.

"DM" was 42 when I was born. She's actually my DGM but raised me as hers. She's always been young for her age and did not feel old in the playground compared to some other parents who were probably around the same age.

When she was 60, she provided childcare for my sibling for about 10 hours a day and found him totally exhausting. Fortunately it was a fixed term arrangement. She couldn't have handled parenting a young child by that stage. She couldn't have managed a teenager in her 70s when her knees were being replaced or cateracts done. Arthritis set in in her 60s and has gradually reduced her driving range to within 15 miles before she gets too sore. At 80, she is active and in sound health, but in pain and has health scares and less resilient than she was. It would be very difficult to be in your early 20s with parents in this state of health. Other friends with parents of this age are facing issues like dementia. "DF" didn't make it this far... he died before I left junior school. Average life expectancy is around 80... so about half the population will have died prior to that age.

DH is older than me so has been an older parent, and actually was the same age as my GPs were when our younger DC was born. It makes a difference that I'm much younger. Even so we are weighing up university/ retirement clashes.

The biological clock happens for a reason. Yes, surragacy avoids the physical toll of pregnancy/ birth, but there is 18+ years of being physical and emotional commitment ahead. When men have babies in their 60s/ 70s, their partner is substantially younger.

I think there is too much risk of burden of poor parental health to create a family when the youngest parent is more than 45-47. Natural conceptions/ healthy pregnancies beyond that point become much rarer.

I wouldn't. It would end up being a role reversal. The child would end up looking after their elderly parents.

I don't know the answer to this. I can't imagine being desperate for a child and not being able to have one. I'm sure it's not a decision they'd have taken lightly. Maybe in the 'getting to know' sessions you'd be able to explore what arrangements they have considered if they should become ill etc.
I do know that when my mother and her partner look after my 2 year old they do feel tired. Although they both run around with her a lot more than I do! 😂
My daughters GF said 'I know now why you are designed to have children young, it's exhausting!'

My parents were 40 when I was born - my dad had dementia in his 70's and died when I was 38. If he'd been 60 when I was born like this potential father will be by the time the baby arrives, I'd have had to deal with his dementia through my teens and death at 18. I wouldn't in your shoes.

Op, if they were trying to adopt a young child at the age they are now, they would not be considered,
As a grandparent in my 60's I love seeing the gdc's BUT I love giving them back, and I also find them mentally tiring.
Bringing up dc's is very stressfull and I think as older parents you are less able to deal with that stress.
When I talk to my friends (who are all in their late 50's early 60's) they all complain that their Dc's don't realise how draining and tiring looking after young children is when you are older. Although you may be healthy, I know (to my cost) that i couldn't cope with full time parenting.
Dealing with stroppy teens in your 70's, no way!
OP I congratulate you on what you are doing, and the consideration you are giving it all.

OP - it's too old for the child's sake. My mum was 57 when my dc1 was born and she was full of beans when dc2 was born 10 years later it was totally different. She didn't have the same amount of energy.

I'd say too old too. But there are some things that could sway my view.
If they were particularly wealthy and had/were intending to have a nanny/staff I might view things a bit differently.

@LucyLoue1991 Can I just say what an amazing thing you are doing for someone who wants to have a baby but are unable for one reason or another.

My head says that yes they are too old and that the child will be dealing with aging parents at a relatively young age and all the issues that come with that.

My heart says that they obviously want a child so much that they need a surrogate (and I’m presuming an egg donor too) to make that possible. Having had many ivfs and many years trying I know how hard it is to want something that comes so easy to some and not be able to have it. Luckily I had a baby earlier this year at 42 but I do agree that you have to draw the line somewhere and accept that age and your ability to cope with a young child does come in to it. Not sure what that age is but I would say mid 50s is too old

No, too risky. My mum was 40 and dad early 50s when Dsis2 was born. She has SN, so will be living with them until they are both either incapable or dead. Luckily for her she has 3 older NT sibs to keep her company/have her to live with us/check out supported living when the time comes.

There is always a chance of a child being born with physical or cognitive impairments that will make them heavily dependent for longer than the standard 16-18 years.

My dad has always been very fit and robust health wise, but in his early 70s he is starting to find things difficult - cataracts, running injuries taking longer to get over, etc. My mum is early 60s and has arthritis starting to set in. Can’t imagine them coping with a 10 year old with physical/mental issues full time.

One of my uni friends was born when his dad was 60. It wasn’t an amazing situation. His dad was nice and they got on fine but by the time I met my friend when we were students, his dad was an old man, nearly the same age as my grandfather. He had really been raised by his mother, who was a lot younger. His dad died last year, before my friend was 30. It wasn’t a long time to have a parent.

I’m not saying it can’t work if the couple are fit, healthy and financially secure, but I would be worried about it. There is a reason nature doesn’t create parents of this age.

There's a reason nature stops us having kids in our mid 40's-50's

This.

Hazel Op, if they were trying to adopt a young child at the age they are now, they would not be considered,

That isn't true.

They are too old it’s not fair on the dc

Though my heart does go out to the couple LucyLoue1991 I really do think you are making the right choice,and I'd just like to add that it takes a really special kind of person to do what you do

Personally I think too old. The chances of the child losing one or both of their parents as a teenager or before would be too high.

I'm 10 years older than the potential father, so the age he would be when the child is 9/10. I've been pretty healthy up until recently until I was diagnosed with some heart problems; nothing too awful though and I'm young in outlook and fairly energetic.

However, there is no way I could cope with a 10 year old child. I have young grandchildren, eldest is 4, and I find them, particularly the 4 year old, exhausting.

As pp said there's a reason nature stops us being able to have children after a certain age. We just don't have the energy and patience to cope after a certain age.

Can't imagine having to get up to a small baby every few hours in the night at that age either.

Far too many reason why this is a terrible idea.