To consider having a baby at 44

[littleloopylou]

I already have one child whom I love dearly. She desperately wants a sibling.

My partner and I met late in life.

We are financially secure.

I am aware it might not be possible.

I would.. if i wanted one and was doing well in life.

I had a surprise baby at 43. There was a three year age gap with closest sibling. Pregnancy was fine as was the birth…I was high risk because of age although the consultant said I shouldn’t really have been as very fit and healthy. The baby is wonderful and has been a joyful addition to our family. Her siblings love and adore her and that has been lovely to see. I think it has struck me how long it will be till I have free time to myself. My friends are all preparing for menopause with gym sessions and paying of their mortgages and I’m skint and tired!

A 5 or 6 year old at 50 - I just don't have the energy for my neighbour's children at this age, never mind one of my own with possible complications. Peri-menopause and KS1 children is a recipt for exhaustion.

A (stroppy, hormonal) 16 year old at 60. Dear god, just NO.

I'm 38 and have a three year old. I absolutely cannot imagine ever having the energy age 44 to have a small child. I'm absolutely knackered with both kids and definitely ready for the small people phase to be finished.

If you have lots of energy then go for it!

I can't imagine it but then mine will be 20 and 18 when I'm 44.

I do think 44 is too old. It's not old in general terms, not at all, but it's old to have a baby. And I don't think a 7 yr old gets to influence this decision, that's nonsensical.

I'd be worried about your health (if anything happens to you you're daughter goes to your abusive ex), miscarriage or disability. I think at 44 your body is old sadly (to carry a baby anyway). I'd adopt if I was you.

If your DD is seven, she will be at least 9 by the time the baby is born and 11 by the time they are old enough to interact with each other. She will going to secondary school and you will have a teenager and a toddler to deal with at the same time. Possibly the hardest stages and certainly with very different interests/friends.

She will be sitting GCSEs when your second child starts school so you will have 16 more years of uniforms, being tied to school holidays and all the organisation required for school. Plus you will still be running around to clubs with the youngest ages after the oldest is preferring to be out with her friends.

I think the age difference won't work until they are both adults at least. At which time you will be nearly 70!

I've got another 10 years to go before I'm 44. And by that point my DC will be nearly 23 and 20.. I personally couldn't think of anything worse. But it's down to personal choice in the end.

Im not even 40 yet.
My baby is 19 years old my eldest is 20 both moved out now im so glad i had both when i did.
Im what MN would call a young mum (not so young now) but pleased i was.
No way would i go through all that again i couldn`t do it at past 35 let alone 44 now ive got my freedom back im keeping it.
Nothing worse than doing the school runs but doing them until 50 60 bloody hell no way.

In that case I would actually say no even more.

Your DD has been through a lot and the teenage years are coming.

I would just focus on her.

With that age gap they will not even live with each other that long probably. 7 years or so.

I would love on her extra hard and help her navigate life with her father trauma.

Your body is doing what it is meant to do- as you approach/enter menopause it is telling you this is your last chance (well a less than 2% chance). But if we followed our bodies we would all have been pregnant about 25 times already during our reproductive life and have many many children

It is hormonal- you will get over it.

44 is likely to be too old due to the age of your eggs, but it's theoretically possible and some women have babies at this age or older.

I wouldn't do it so your child has a sibling though. There'd be at least an 8 year age gap and family life would be tricky dealing with two at such different stages. Plus they may not have a good relationship. Eldest might resent the restrictions placed on them by the needs of a much younger child.

As for having a 44 year age gap. My kids are adopted - due to the time it took to go through the infertility process and then making the decision to adopt, I was in my 40s before they were born / placed.

Youngest was born when I was 45. It has been absolutely fine being an older parent. I am fit and active, and have always looked younger than my years. I feel it's kept me younger too. I would have drawn the line at any bigger age gap though - 45 was my limit.

I don't know if I would try again in your shoes though. But if you're happy to give it a go, just prepare yourself for failure (and the higher chance of an SEN child.)

Women who conceive a child naturally in their mid to late forties are likely to live longer than average, so the chances of their child being orphaned before adulthood are much lower than the doomsayers on mumsnet would suggest.

That's really interesting. My grandma had her last child at age 45. My aunt was 55 when her mother died.

Do you and dh want another baby

Mini blondes would love to be a big sister. Never going to happen

I was almost 44 when gave birth

Took 10yrs ttc and 5 private ivf to get one and only ever bfp

Those who had children young will say never and too old

Those who like me who were older due to Mother Nature not playing ball would say give it a go

Obv there are more risks of mc and sn

If you have a spare £15/20k then could try ivf as likely to be more successful then ttc naturally due to age and also have testing done on embroys

Probably hormones talking OP, I am well past it, but I am a very maternal person and if I see a baby those feelings rush to the fore. But aside from the risks of a late pregnancy, assuming you have a wonderful healthy baby, would you want to be 60 with a 15 year old child? Sleepless nights, nappies, endless school runs etc. I think we look back on halcyon days and forget how tough it is raising a child. Good luck with whatever decision you make, I wish you well.

I wouldn’t fancy it.

Well personally I wouldn't as I'm WELL into peri/meno at the same age so the risks to me/the child would potentially significant...and that would be even if I managed to get pregnant.

However if you're still healthy and fertile go for it...in my NCT group and half the school mums in my DCs class are all 40+.

Quite strange to read all these replies as I had that baby at 44 and am now 64 with a 20 year old.
He is now at university and none of the dreaded things in this thread have happened. He isn't embarrassed by me and I don't resent him.

If you and your partner want a baby and can afford to, immediately go to a private fertility clinic for IVF. Your chances naturally are low and dropping, sorry to be brutal.

It’s a big decision, and a bit higher risk all round. You say you are secure money-wise and feel a bit wistful. In your shoes I would want to have the mindset that it probably won’t happen but it’s a bonus if it does as I would hate to waste my own time and my existing child’s younger years pursuing something that had steadily reducing odds.

Please don’t underestimate the impact of the of much higher levels of fatigue than when you had your first child - seems to be a thing with older mums. You will also have to factor in the potential effect of menopause on your wellbeing when you have very young children.

I was an older mum, it was far more exhausting than I anticipated. I am the oldest mum of my daughter’s friends. I can tell you menopause and tween hormones are a toxic mix!

Good luck, whatever you decide!

It's interesting that many of the people who are saying 'God no!' are also saying that their two kids are or will be late teens at the age of 44 and they couldn't imagine starting again. That's a completely different scenario to someone who has one child who is still primary age. OP is already at a completely different stage in her life despite being the same age, so it's comparing apples and oranges.

OP I am 43 and pregnant. At my booking appointment last week both of the midwives I spoke to were unconcerned about my age (and one said her own mum was 42 when she was born).

I can't advise you, but for me it would be a super easy no. I'll practically have 2 adults t then and I have plans to do more things with my husband, new work opportunities, travel etc.
I'm putting my all into my kids, and I do my absolute best for them, but one of the reasons that I had them close together is that I prefer to go through a similar stage with them together.
If your daughter will be almost 9 when a future child I born you will almost have 2 separate single children rather than bringing them up together. Some people might prefer this, but I would find it difficult.

No-one can decide for you, but as other posters have said if you start trying at 44 you could be 46 by the time it arrives. That's takes you to retirement with a 20 year old, who might still be financially dependent.

I am early 60s with a 22 year old with autism who is lovely, but still needs a lot of my time and resources and I admit to having worries about the long term. He does work at the moment, but it's hit and miss.

My vote is no. Enjoy the child you have and concentrate on giving them the best life you can.

I wouldn’t do it.

I think you should try