To fear that the youngest child will be worse-off b/c parents have less years to live with them?

[Linguistmum]

(English is not my native language, I live in Finland but have been following MN forum for ages)

Short put: I would really like to a have a 3rd child. I've thought about this for 2 years now, and my husband is happy either way. Finances, house, healthwise it would be very manageable. But the "time resource" - as I tend to call it - is the only reason I cannot decide on having a 3rd child. This question seems to bother me a lot.

We have two children, now 11 and 8. I was 22 when had my first, then 25 when my 2nd DC was born. My DP is from a family of relatively young parents (his mum 23 and dad 27 when he was born, all the grandparents were alive and very active), whereas my case was pretty much the opposite with only one grandparent alive and uncles and aunts in their 60s and 70s when I was just under 5! I've been invited to 10 x more funerals than weddings when I was growing up.

This has led me to think of what it means for a possible 3rd child to have significantly less years left with his/her parents than the other 2. Even if we lived to be 90, our hypothetical 3rd child will have at least 12 years less with us than our first child! I get a very uneasy feeling when thinking of this, and I cannot seem to get over the thought that this is somehow very wrong and scary for the child. If time is the most important resource one can give as a parent, would it be wrong to have number 3 with such a big age gap?

We are not "old" by any means, I am 34 and DC 36, and many people start on a family at our age. But I keep counting how many days, weeks and months our first two kids have had with us, in contrast to number 3 who is so far behind.

I acknowledge that some of this worry might mix with my feelings about my dad who had me in his early 40s (I was the first child though). He was very stressed about work during my early years and I always had an unexplained thought he was very "fragile" - he was overprotective and easily anxious. So it is hard for me to distuinguish between his age and personality, but the result is that I fear our possible 3rd DC will fear losing us etc.

Does it make a big difference to be 40 years old and have a mom aged 65 vs 75? Does it affect one's sense of security?

Can even the youngest children be equally confident and happy than their older brothers and sisters?

Thank you for your thoughts.

The most common age of death for women in the UK is 89 currently. So if you did have 1 at 35 then they would have you until they were 54 at least (probably longer with medical advancements and you taking care of yourself). I think that’s plenty long enough really.

I had my first baby at 39 and my baby would be 50 when I am 89. I would hope I can raise him to be independant and wonderful enough so he can have a family and friend support structure by that age so my loss wouldn’t devastate him as much. But I am aiming to be as healthy as possible to live to a sprightly 120 lol

I think you are hugely overthinking this. I am the youngest of 5 - my eldest brother is 11 years older than me and it has never occurred to me to feel hard done by because I had 11 years less of my parents than he did.

My father-in-law was 51 when dh was born and I don't think dh had any particular sense that his dad was frail- tbh with FIL's personality I think we all more or less expected he would live forever (he died at 92). And quite frankly, by the time your parent starts going downhill, you're not going to worry or grieve any more or less because you are 45 rather than 50 like your older sibling.

Chances are by the time you go all your children will be middle-aged anyway and hopefully secure in their own adult lives: they will mourn you but they won't feel any more or less able to cope dependent on whether they are a few more or less years middle-aged.

It sounds like you are still in your early 30s, so I don’t think you need to worry unnecessarily. There will always be a child who gets longer with their parents than their younger sibling, but I don’t think anyone thinks about it.
Does it bother your youngest that your older child had three years with you before they were born?
Age gaps widen at the start and end of life. A gap between eg an 5 yr old and a new baby seem less between 40 and 45, and bigger between 75 and 80.
When you are in your later years your children will be middle aged and it won’t seem like a big deal.
And no-one knows what future your health or destiny has in store. You could be fit as a fiddle at 90 or hit by a bus tomorrow.
You are young and presumably healthy. If it wasn’t for this, would you have another?

You are massively overthinking this.

A younger sibling would generally not grow up thinking about the amount of time they've had with you in comparison to older siblings

Hi, fellow Scandi here . No advise, but I can tell you of my experience. I'm 'the baby', 7 and 9 years older sisters, my dm 38 when she had me. My oldest sister was very maternal and loved a baby/doll, my middle sister has 'hated' me since I can remember, very, very jealous. She still is even though she is 60+.

I was materially spoilt compared to sisters, but socially i was the one left out. Sisters had each other in quite a different way, compared to their relationship with me. I was more of an only child with siblings.

Often (not just me) you subconsciously 'tie' the baby (adult) more to the parents, the baby is more alone with the parents and form a bond, when parents are older and siblings have moved out. This is both good and bad, my parents were very lovely and hands on with my dc, but it was me and just me who felt an obligation to care for them old and sick.

I've always said 'if you want a baby with a huge age gap to their siblings, imo you have an 'obligation' to have two'. It can be quite lonely being the baby.

Just my take .

My maternal grandmother had my mum at 22 and her youngest brother at 41. There is a bunch in between. She died in March at 98. The youngest is possibly the most laid back and happiest, growing up as he did in a busy happy house full of siblings.

There are advantages and disadvantages of any position in the birth order. But you’re really overthinking this! Losing a parent at any age is awful but I can’t imagine that anyone’s overriding concern is that their older sibling got more time with the parents than them!

If you were 70 this would be a reason worry (friend of mine’s dad was 70* when he was 16 and died before 80 (my friend was his last child from 3rd marriage with way younger wife)) but you are in your early 30s!

If anything the youngest tends to get more time as they are home after the others leave and don’t share that time and actually remember it!

I am 21 years older than my youngest sibling but he spent vastly more time with my father than I did, was way closer to him, knew him far better than me.

Why on earth would it matter to them? That's ridiculous! They might be glad to have fewer years with you! Or you could say the older sibling is hard done by as it lived more years with fewer siblings.
I am the third of 4, and I care not a jot how long each of us got with our parents. I mean, if you lived abroad then you chose to distance yourself for some of that time anyway.
If you want another child this should really bot be a consideration.

You are massively overthinking this sorry

It was good having a older mum (41) she is still alive now (87)! Try not to worry too much xx

Byt the time I am 40, my parents will be 75 and 82 (if they live that long; my dad might not).

As the third child (with a significant gap) of the family, my main concern is lack of financial resources more than time with them. My parents got divorced when I was 11, but my sisters had already left home by then, so I was far more affected.

Not everyone even likes their parents enough to want more years with them...

My Mum had 5 dd's. The eldest is 16 years older than the youngest. When Mum died we were all upset but my youngest dsis was inconsolable and kept saying it was not fair because she had Mum for less time. Mum died when did was 44.

I was very conscious of this as my dad died when I was pregnant with my youngest (8 year gap between my eldest and youngest). I am the eldest in my family and I feel lucky that I was born with all 4 grandparents still alive, my dad gave me away at my wedding and 3 of my dc were old enough to remember my dad when he died. My eldest was born with 3 great grandparents still alive and at 14 still has 2 great grandparents. They will likely both have died by the time my youngest is 14.

However there are advantages of being the youngest. My 6 year old knows that I will be watching his school play and I won't have to miss his lines because I had to take a crying baby out. He will be an uncle at least 8 years younger than my eldest will. I was a more experienced parent with my youngest. Lots of advantages and disadvantages whatever your place in the family.

Another poster who can say kindly, I think you can relax!
My eldest sibling is 8 years older than me. My mum had me at 39, im 30 now snd she is very nearly 70 however she is incredibly fit and active as is my dad. I have honestly never thought about my eldest sibling having more time with our parents than nr up until now because of this post
I think its more of a comfort i have more siblings (there's 4 of us in total) so when eventually our parents do pass away we will have the support of each other.
That bond between siblings was always made to be the upmost Importance growing up (and it still is) so please don't let this "issue" stop you from having anymore children. You and your husband seem to be in a great position for another child keep yourself as healthy as you can and bring your children up as vest you can to have a lifelong close bond and they will all be absolutely fine

My mother had me at 40 she died aged 93. She was in my life for 53 years , I have never thought about being short changed in time and never remember thinking she was ' too old' as a parent or worrying unduly about their death as a child . Nor with my father who died aged 89. In fact I often think that I was very lucky to have parents for so long.

Then again my niece lost her mother ( my sister ) when she was 6 years old and her father at 18. Her mother. Was 31 when she died and her father 47 when he died . That puts it in perspective for me .I mean this as kindly as possible but you need not to think about this so much. You are not that old to have another child. You could have 50-60 years with them

Another one who thinks you are massively over thinking this. I was 21 having my first child and 35 having my 4th and last child.

My dad was also in his 40's when I was born and I did worry about him dying as I grew up, so I understand why you would feel this way but.....

....If you want another child, go for it. You are still young enough to spend a decent amount of time with him or her. And 40 today is not the same as 40 36 yrs ago. It's obviously on your mind. I really think you will regret it if you dont

I really would not worry about you potentially dying and the child thinking it was unfair that they had less time with you.

I am currently 19wks pregnant at recently turning 37. I had my oldest 2 at age 20 and 22yrs. I love my 2 but life was hard when they were very young as I was in a bad relationship, had little money, had to work in daytime and study on evening to get qualifications and a better job. I was stressed half the time! I am now in relationship with a good man and have good job and feel financially fine. I feel this baby will have a better quality of life than the oldest 2 had and older siblings to look out for it if anything happened to me.

The sad part is my grandad died 4yrs ago and my grandma will be 88 when it’s born so will not get to spoil it same as she did with the others. My mum is now in her 60s however she is in good health but you never know what health issues you might get when you get older. The way I look at it is as long as you and your partner are healthy then things should be fine. Remember there are younger parents who live bad lifestyles and you are more likely to die younger if take drugs/drink too much than if you are in your 30s/40s and live a healthy lifestyle. My grandma is 87 and going strong health wise and her mum died age 99 so I hope same will be for me.

Your child will, in most likelihood, be an adult before you die. As someone who's parents are thankfully absent in my adulthood I perhaps come at this a little less "rose tinted" and too practically most adult children have their own support network besides their parents that they can draw upon.

Thank you for all the replies and thoughts.

After reading your comments it suddenly popped into my mind that maybe it wasn't my dad's age that made me feel he was "fragile"and could not care for me. After all he is still working part-time at the age of 74 and is healthy! So I called my mom today and had a very good conversation where she shared her point of view. (I don't dare to talk about these things with my dad)

I always had the feeling my dad had become too old and fragile to spend time with me when I reached puberty and went to high school. He stopped doing things with me and withdrew from spending time with me. Definitely loving and supportive but not involved. I interpreted this as age-related (he was 56-63 at the time), and swore I would never ever have kids so old myself. However like my mom said maybe this wasn't his b/c of his age but his upbringing - he personally had had to enter adulthood at the age of 16 and start earning for the rest of the family and younger siblings because of a crisis within the family. He became the breadwinner for 2 younger siblings and his mum. Maybe because of his own background he didn't know how to parent a teen (or maybe he genuinely thought that was the time to let go) and as a consequence, I got the impression it was too much for his aging body and mind.

This definitely changed my way of thinking about baby no 3. I know I can do things differently with my teens, now that I know the pattern.