to think rising levels of neuro diverse children in society is partly due to rising ages of pregnant mothers?

[staydazzling]

im not condeming anything here btw, i would like to make that clear. and i know this may not go down well on here, donning hard hat but whenever theres discussions about how neurological diversity in children has risen ASD, ADHD etc in society, the conversion is often about MMR Ipads or diet, discipline etc which of course all important variables but i feel its unhelpful that a lot of would be mothers are not informed of the risk past 35, of downs syndrome, autism etc, its obviously much better financially to be older and have a family. aibu to feel its the elephant inthe room regarding rising levels of children with ASD, ADHD, Etc??

Sometimes you don't have to voice every thought on your head, you know.

Paternal age is the genetic factor for non-neurotypical conditions. Not maternal age.

Also - genetics play a huge factor in recent research which is ongoing. Whereas 20 years ago an adult may have been described as a bit quirky, they could be undiagnosed ASD for example and therefore their children are more likely to be.

Also, there is far more awareness of neurological conditions than ever before.

Not discounting the vast amount of poorly raised children who's parents self-diagnose their otherwise neurotypical children with conditions they don't have to excuse their troubled behaviour.

2 of my 4 have ASD, DS1 & DS3. In our case DH and FIL don't have a dx but would likely meet the criteria for one. I do wonder about myself tbh! I was 27 when DS1 was born and DH is 3 years younger.

I'm aware it's anecdotal, but as I actually have 2 neurodiverse children I do wonder where thread like these are going...

I had my eldest at 19, his father was 21.he was born with asd.
Had my youngest at 37.father 44

Only my eldest has asd.
Yes you have increased risks as you get older but its not a clear path when your younger earlier. Most of thr families i know who have additional needs (not just asd) were all younger mothers.

I'd say another factor is that people are more mobile and more likely to couple up with similar people so two slightly aspie parents will likely produce a more aspie child

I've seen that susggestion -which makes sense to me - put forward to expalin clusters/hot spots - though sometimes the lcoal industries are aslo suggested though I don't think they would be multually exclusive reasons.

I also think diagnosis is improving which clearly would increase numbers and yes as pp said better educated partents would I suspect be more likely to investigate and navigate diagnostic processes.

There was in press a while back some research suggesting some epileptic drugs could be a risk factor.

www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/new-report-links-epilepsy-drug-autism#.Xg8uPUf7TIU

Youngsters whose mothers had taken valproate singly or in combination with other drugs while pregnant were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental condition than those whose mothers were taking other drugs to treat their condition, the study found.

Authors of the small study .... Neurodevelopmental problems were significantly more common among those children whose mothers had epilepsy - 7.46% compared with 1.87% of those whose mothers who did not have the condition.

So I suspect it's a whole host of causes possibly interacting.

Also, interestingly, with zero reason to know what factors, pregnancy and delivery with DS was tricky and possibly without modern medicine, it's possible he wouldn't have made it at all. I have also often wondered if the pregnancy and delivery played a part in his SPD. His OT tells me they ARE doing research on this as they think it might be a factor, especially delivery as it can directly impact the head/brain. So perhaps back in the old days, these children didn't make it/were still born at higher levels than today?

Both mine have ASD. I was 23 when I had dd1, her DF was 40. I was 29 when I had dd2, her DF was 49.

(Daddy issues, in case you’re wondering)

ASD is thought to mainly have a genetic component. In the past, children who had 'classic' autism (non verbal, headbanging, not playing, not meeting milestones) would have been put in a home, or kept away from people, or wouldn't have thrived due to refusing to eat etc. My personal musing, is whether autistic regression is one of the reasons the 'changeling' idea came about, that your previously happy content baby changed to a sad, not eating, non verbal child and so the 'fairy folk' must have taken the baby and swapped it. High functioning/ aspergers type Autism would have been more easily masked- the maiden aunt who never married, the village eccentric, the bachelor uncle etc. Life was so much lower sensory pressure that the 'oddness' would have been less likely to end in meltdown. I also think a previous poster has a good point around people being more mobile and more able to seek out kindred spirits in marriage and having children, so neurodiverse people marrying and havung neurodiverse children. I say this as a late diagnosed autistic woman, married to an undiagnosed but definitely autistic man (dr who diagnosed my child recognised it in him) with 3 kids, one of whom is diagnosed autistic (aspergers type) , another who is just starting the pathway and the third who has some traits but not enough to warrant exploring diagnosis. There are definitely relatives with traits as well on both sides of our families, undiagnosed as it just wasn't recognised as a 'thing' decades ago.

I always imagine that so-called "high functioning" autism was much easier to deal with and mask in ye olden days.

Society was slower, calmer and quieter. It had clear rigid codes of conduct, hierarchy and expectations. And there were higher infant mortality rates - if you had a baby that didn't eat, for example, then it didn't survive.

I've often thought this and there were specific lifestyles suited to various needs. For example, if someone wanted to live alone on a small holding in the middle of nowhere with no wife and very little contact with others then no one batted an eye. They were simply private or reclusive, kept themselves to themselves.

I've also a theory (not at all scientific but still interesting) that in Ye Very Olde Days the stories of Changling children - children taken by fairies with a decoy child left in their place - were actually autistic children.

And yes to not eating and dying. DS2 has a very limited diet, we have to work just to keep his weight at the bottom end of the healthy range so without benefit of supplements and acceptable foods he would have probably been classed as "sickly" then died of "wasting away" or "failing to thrive"

My personal musing, is whether autistic regression is one of the reasons the 'changeling' idea came about, that your previously happy content baby changed to a sad, not eating, non verbal child and so the 'fairy folk' must have taken the baby and swapped it

Ha! Cross post

People prone to sudden 'outbursts of lunacy' and put into asylums were probably autistic too and experiencing meltdowns.

Devereux1 In my experience it would be impossible to separate out. I have 2 children, one with ASD and one with ADHD. This is an incredibly common situation. Lots and lots of families I know are the same.

Could we change the thread title to -

"AIBU to think that it is an extremely complex combination of factors that contributes to higher numbers people who are 'neurodiverse' being part of a rich and diverse society, but is is easier for my lazy brain to act as a Daily Mail Headline Generator and blame it on mothers*?"

....not catchy enough??

*single women, immigrants, fat women, liberals, poor people, old women, Turkey Twizzlers, video games......delete as applicable.

YANBU to ponder it but you don't have any actual sound evidence to give us so saying it on a parenting forum where there will be a large number of mothers who have children with a diagnosis, might not be the kindest move.

It could be anything from an increase in diagnosis to over use of plastics to pollution. All are things to ponder, but without evidence maybe reconsider your audience for your particular theory.

What is the actual point of starting this thread?

Other than to upset people, what did you hope to achieve?

Who knows?
I dont think saying it's older mothers (or firing back: no, no it's younger mothers!) is helpful really.

Diagnosis has improved, so that in itself will lead to an increase in numbers. And also the understanding of the spectrum has widened so people who would not have been counted before are now.

Autism runs in my partner's family, so I know that they will be scrutinizing my baby for signs of it as soon as he comes out. I also have 2 step brothers on the spectrum, so I feel pretty prepared no matter what.
I do feel kind of sorry for people who are on the spectrum because it seems like they're always being treated as an issue to be solved.

As it stands, the leading theories are a more refined diagnostic process/recognition and genetic factors.

I think it was only last year that the number of women over 40 having a baby exceeded the number of women in the pre war years having babies over 40!

That said, ‘modern life’ is pretty crap for many neurodiverse people and I’m sure if we lived a different way with less emphasis on focussed, academic schooling from an early age, it might not be so apparent that some people find this overwhelming and difficult to manage.

I agree with pp that the lifestyle people led was more conducive to particularly high functioning ASD people coping.
I also think maternal and paternal age is a red herring because couples carried on having children into their 40s routinely. My nan was born when her mother was 43 and her father 53. Her oldest sibling was 23 at the time.
I would be looking to genetics for the cause and understanding for the increase in diagnosis.

No there have always been lots of kids born to 35+ mothers. It is just that in the past they were the Fifth, sixth or higher child.

My brother and his son were diagnosed with ASD. They display the same symptoms as our dad and grandfather, but they were never diagnosed because nobody ever thought of doing that.

So I think it's that. They didn't diagnose people in the olden days. So statistics mean nothing.

No.

It's being diagnosed more.

I have 2 DC who have Autism, I was.17 when I had my first. 23 when I had my second.

My sis was 23 when she had.her.first. 28 when she had.her second.

We also both have Autism. Diagnosed a few years ago after years of not fitting in, being labelled odd and.just not getting social cues. Had we not had.children ourselves (( and.if both cases our childs paed asked if we.had a diagnosis )) we'd probably have never known.

I always thought it's fairly evident that it's down to better understanding of these conditions. Women have long been birthing children into their forties. Women are generally older having their first child but they've always continued until menopause, especially back when contraception wasn't widely available/effective. I'm surprised people can't use a modicum of common sense to work that one out, even if history isn't their strong point.

I’m not offended by what you’ve said but from a personal point of view you’re wrong. I was in my mid 20s when I had my son who has ASD and ADHD and actually as I wrack my brains I can only think of 1 or maybe 2 children with these conditions and similar born to parents who are on the older side. And even then I’m just guessing the parents ages.

I actually believe that it’s more a case of a far better understanding of these things now so it makes it easier to understand and diagnose. My parents and in-laws were all born in the 50s and all knew people- adults and children who they think might have been on the spectrum but obviously wouldn’t have known that. These people were written off as being something else and described in horribly offensive terms.

I'm not sure... I've read quite a bit that says there is a higher risk of autism amongst older mothers, I am not sure how strong the evidence is, but the research is certainly there. I've had my first at 39 and will be having another at 41. I am terrified at the risk of abnormalities etc. However, all the older mothers I know have nt children. But that's anecdotal I guess.