To wish I’d had my kids earlier?

[40220s]

My mum was 35 when she had me. She died when I was 16, and I had my first baby at 40. My dad died when I was 30.

One of my friends at school got pregnant at university and I remember my dad making some comment about being glad it wasn’t me. But I look at her now and it got me thinking. If I’d had my first baby at 20 and my mum had me at 20 … maybe there’s something in doing it that way, as you’re more likely to have extensive support from family.

Does anyone else think that this might be a ‘better’ way than the middle class approved route of kids in your 30s?

@TomatoSquash

Plenty of 60 year olds would be enormously insulted by that Well put it this way: You have to sacrifice yourself for 20 years to raise kids. By the time they leave home and I’m free I’ll be 60 and it’ll be too late to leave DH and find someone to fall in love with. But if I’d had them at 20 I could leave DH at 40 and still be young enough to find someone else.

If you feel like this now you need to leave him now not when you are 60

@Rollmopsrule

It's not about age at all. Everyone has different priorities at different ages that works for them For me I liked having very little responsibility in my 20s and I prioritised travel. I don't regret waiting to have kids and anyway I didn't meet my husband till I was in my 30s. Its not like your life is over once you have kids and I have plenty of plans to look forward to in my 50s and 60s. There is no right or wrong way.

My parents are still caring for my 30-something brother. Some children are a lifelong responsibility. There are lots of assumptions on this thread that children will leave home and be independent at 18...often doesn't work like that.

There's pluses and minuses to any age I think, getting older has definitely taught me to be less judgy about this stuff!

I had my three between the ages of 20-26. We didn't have loads of cash and it was a struggle at times but we had a blast and I wouldn't change anything. I'm approaching mid forties now and the older two have finished university and flown the nest, the youngest is at sixth form. I've just spent three years retraining and have achieved a degree and a whole new career in the NHS, I still have 25 years of working before I can retire and it all feels like an adventure!

My closest friends had their children in their late thirties and have much nicer houses and better careers but have had to take long career breaks. They also seem to be finding it tougher than I did - but I didn't have anything to compare it against so didn't really miss anything the way my friends do. None of us regret the way we've done things though I don't think and we are all great parents (on balance, nobody is perfect). I had more help from my parents and in laws on the whole because they were still young, but my children didn't have as many financial advantages as my friends' do.

I'm not sure it matters much in the long run, I don't believe there's a gold standard age to have children

How is starting your career as a young DM any more damaging than taking maternity leave 40 and sometimes twice in a short period?

As a young mother just starting her career, you're competing with mostly childless people, who do not need to leave early for nursery pick up, who won't need days off with sick kids, who can work all hours to get their foot on the career ladder. At least in my chosen career, it is quite normal to work crazy hours during your first years - i could not have done it with young children.
You don't have anything special to offer, so why would an employer want to make all those accommodations for you, if they have thousands of other candidates straight out of school? It's hard enough to find any job when you have no experience, certainly not easier if you also come with your own list of demands and requests.

You're in a much better position with a strong CV and 10+ years of experience. Now recruiters are chasing after me, not the other way around and my employers were very happy to make any accommodations I needed. And contrary to popular opinion, the management jobs often offer a lot more flexibility than a shift worker on shop floor gets.

I'm absolutely not saying that career as a young mother is impossible, I know plenty of people who have made it happen. But it is harder.

@G5000

How is starting your career as a young DM any more damaging than taking maternity leave 40 and sometimes twice in a short period?

As a young mother just starting her career, you're competing with mostly childless people, who do not need to leave early for nursery pick up, who won't need days off with sick kids, who can work all hours to get their foot on the career ladder. At least in my chosen career, it is quite normal to work crazy hours during your first years - i could not have done it with young children.
You don't have anything special to offer, so why would an employer want to make all those accommodations for you, if they have thousands of other candidates straight out of school? It's hard enough to find any job when you have no experience, certainly not easier if you also come with your own list of demands and requests.

You're in a much better position with a strong CV and 10+ years of experience. Now recruiters are chasing after me, not the other way around and my employers were very happy to make any accommodations I needed. And contrary to popular opinion, the management jobs often offer a lot more flexibility than a shift worker on shop floor gets.

I'm absolutely not saying that career as a young mother is impossible, I know plenty of people who have made it happen. But it is harder.

I think that’s fair. Not all careers are equal in terms of an ability to combine them with parenting young children. In mine, it’s common to have to move around a lot for post docs and short-term fixed contracts as a junior, so would involve repeatedly upping sticks to another part of the country or internationally with children. It’s not impossible, but hellishly difficult, and often not fair on the children.

I think it’s easier to take maternity leave younger in government service jobs, such as teachers doctors nurses etc because you’re protected by good employment conditions and trade unions etc plus there isn’t so much emphasis on the cost as in profit-driven organisations. Now I think about it, that seems to be a bit of a divide in the people I know - the ones working for the private sector seem to have children later.

@TomatoSquash

If you have your kids at 20 then you have hope of having a life after they’ve grown up. You have a future to look forward to. You won’t even be 40 when they leave home. However if you have your kids at 40 you have a constant sinking sensation that this is it for you, you’ll be an old person of 60 when they leave home and you have no future.

I don’t agree with this at all. I have three, spread out as, partly as 8 have terrible pregnancies but mainly as I don’t want a life without a child at home! I love it!! I live a full life - i just do it with my children.

Had my first at 22 and my last at 40.

I’m not longing for a future when they have left.

I think it really depends on your circumstances, but generally speaking it is better to have them when you are younger. I'm not white British, I'm nearly 40 and my two eldest dc are nearly university age. I got married at 20, had 2 at 23 then went on to do under and postgrad. My DH financially/emotionally/practically supported me through this. On MN this is the worst case scenario as I was financially dependent for a considerable length of time but for me I feel this was a great system, I never had the exhaustion that older mothers had and I had loads of energy and patience to deal with them. I can now (almost) fully concentrate on building up my career and have another 20+ years to do that.
Horses for courses really.

I had mine at 21 and 24, so glad I did.

@Blossomtoes I literally said that in my comment. We are not just talking about biology.

@Rollmopsrule is exactly how I feel about the situation.

@Realyorkshiretea I think you’ve got It into your head that i think having children young is wrong. The last thing on my mind at all times is what age people choose to have kids. I simply could not care less. What I think is you want a cultural shift to having kids younger whereas I want a cultural shift to where having children young or old is not stigmatised because people realise people are doing what is right for them.

I will not be explaining any further either because I think you are purposely trying to miss the point.

@g5000 and I totally agree with you here. Maybe the divide is between public and private sector professions but my profession was one where people are literally desperate to enter it. If you can’t do the job they quite literally have 1,000 others that are willing. While now due to employment law they cannot explicitly fire you for preganancy everything is results driven so if you need time off for childcare and cant stay long nights then this will inevitably reduce your results and then they will fire you for that.

I don’t think this is a good thing but practically not much can be done about it and this worked for me because I did not want children in my 20’s anyway but people who did want children young inevitable left or where never in the industry in the first place as people realise you are expected to put the time in as a junior.

Mmmmhhhh a tricky one.
I had mine VERY late in life even if I started to try in my early 30s.
While I wish I had him ten years earlier, I still enjoy very much the fact I had a chance to live a very full life before having him. I built my career, travelled a lot, and generally speaking experienced a lot in life. Now, my child is just completing that, and I feel zero urge for time to speed up so he leaves home and I can 'have a life again' as many young mums desire.
To add another element to the picture, I don't know anyone who had a baby before turning 30, with most of my friends becoming parents the first time around 34-35 and quite a few around 40.

@ithinkilikeit

30 is hardly ‘young’. I would like it if society stopped drumming it into women that it is, yes. At the moment the stigma isn’t having children around 40, it’s having children in your 20s, as previous posters have highlighted. Ergo there needs to be a cultural shift to help women that want to do so have children younger than what is currently the norm in certain circles.

@TomatoSquash

If you have your kids at 20 then you have hope of having a life after they’ve grown up. You have a future to look forward to. You won’t even be 40 when they leave home. However if you have your kids at 40 you have a constant sinking sensation that this is it for you, you’ll be an old person of 60 when they leave home and you have no future.

To be fair I know plenty of 25-30 year olds who live at home while "saving for a mortgage" and will do for the foreseeable

@Realyorkshiretea well I think 30 is ‘young’. It’s pointless to discuss with you because you will disagree with everything I say so I think it’s best if we leave it here.

[quote ithinkilikeit]@Realyorkshiretea well I think 30 is ‘young’. It’s pointless to discuss with you because you will disagree with everything I say so I think it’s best if we leave it here.[/quote]
I mean biologically in childbearing, but not in life. That’s just a fact?

Not relevant if you always wanted to be a SAHM anyway, but if not, there's also the childcare aspect. If I have had children in my early 20s, I would not have been able to afford childcare. 2-3 DC with even a couple of years between them, and that would have meant a gap of several years on my CV. Again not impossible - but quite challenging to get back on the career ladder with no or very little work experience but looking for flexibility to fit around family obligations.

Of course you can say that grandparents are young enough to help - but a granparent in their 40s is probably still working. Plus, this would not work with the plan to be done with childcare and have your freedom back.

When I had my first in my late 20's, I was considered old to be a ftm. Now, I'd be average or even slightly young. I do wish we'd had our dcs when I was younger - having dc1 when I did had repercussions we could never have imagined (or planned for) which continue even now, over 30 years later. OTOH, if we had had our dcs sooner, we wouldn't have had the same dcs, or dgc, so, on balance I'm glad we had them when we did.

Does anyone else think that this might be a ‘better’ way than the middle class approved route of kids in your 30s?

My grandmothers were both very poor with large families. They had children in their 20s, 30s and 40s.

If "biologically" was what matters most then kids from very young mothers wouldnt disproportionately have poorer outcomes. Its quite handy to be able to support your children emotionally and financially and quite a lot of people arent in a position to do that at 24. And children first then career is particularly disastrous if your dp decides he's not cut out for fatherhood in the first few years and buggers off and you are utterly financially dependent on him.

middleager
Does anyone else think that this might be a ‘better’ way than the middle class approved route of kids in your 30s? dunno but two of my friend’s DC are both around 27, have 2 DC are married, one has a three bedroom house, one a four bedroom one and seem very happy. Neither of them went to university but they both have jobs they enjoy.

@Porcupineintherough

If "biologically" was what matters most then kids from very young mothers wouldnt disproportionately have poorer outcomes. Its quite handy to be able to support your children emotionally and financially and quite a lot of people arent in a position to do that at 24. And children first then career is particularly disastrous if your dp decides he's not cut out for fatherhood in the first few years and buggers off and you are utterly financially dependent on him.

Let's say you have your first child at 16/17. You get to live at home rent free. Your parents help you financially. You get free education in this country, and free/heavily subsidised childcare. When you're 18, you are entitled to UC, and when you start work/further study, you get more subsidised childcare. You're child gets a free school place and you had living grandparents. Extra loans and grants for having a child in study. Child benefit.

Truly, it's not the end of the world. In no way do I advocate teen pregnancy but my point is there's no reason it's not possible. If you have the motivation, even if you're WC or poorer, you can totally do it.

What I outlined was basically me, as a lone parent as a teen. Younger parents in their 20s get much the same support. No man needed, you won't be financially fucked at all. Its probably better to live with parents with a baby I study, than to be an unemployed SAHM (no shade), if we're talking about being reliant on the father.

I often think I wish I’d had children younger and had more.

Then I realise I wouldn’t have been able to afford to have more children if I’d started younger. And I wouldn’t have had anything like the flexibility in my job that I have now. And I also wouldn’t have the child that I have.

So for me I think it all comes to the same thing. I would either have been limited by money or age. As it happens I’m limited by age, less so by money.

I had mine at 26 and 27. I wish I had had them younger.