Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Having a baby at 40 - just how hard is it - assuming you're not Madonna or Cherie?

43 replies

mousiemousie · 21/03/2006 17:33

My friend is thinking of a second child but is concerned that she will be much older than when she had her first - 40 in fact.

She is nervous about how much harder being the mother of a small child might be when you are 40. Is it a lot harder?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

bundle · 21/03/2006 17:34

i saw a friend who's just had her 3rd...she's still in her 20's and tbh i felt knackered (nearly 41 and 2 dd's - 5.5 and nearly 3) so yes, it does get harder, but i believe i have more patience than when i was younger and appreciate them more.

iota · 21/03/2006 17:34

I have nothing to compare it to, but I had my fisrt child at 40 and went back to work F/T

It got tougher when I had my second at 42

goldenoldie · 21/03/2006 18:32

I've found having twins easier at 42 than coping with a single child at 31.

Personally, I am a much more together parent now, calmer, more organised, reached a good point in my career where I can ease up a bit, have more money, bigger house, car, more relaxed about getting/accepting help rather than trying to be the superwoman I was in my early 30s. B

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

Blu · 21/03/2006 18:34

I have no idea if it is harder, as my first was born when I was 43 - but I seem to be coping under the strain!

Mog · 21/03/2006 19:03

I've got three under 5 and I'm 42. Like the others I don't know any different so think I cope all right energy wise. Think most mums would be tired at the end of the day with my lot.
I am interested in the energy levels thing though as I don't seem to remember huge energy levels when I was in my 20's. If I partied hard I usually stayed in bed for most of the next day. When people talk about having higher energy levels because they are younger mums, what does that actually mean? Do they do things with their kids that we don't, I'm not really sure what else I would do with my kids if I had higher ebergy levels.

Tinker · 21/03/2006 19:05

I had one at 32 and one at 40. Was on my own with 1st one so am finding the 2nd one a doddle in comparison.

motherinferior · 21/03/2006 19:08

I'm with Mog - I was a knackered wreck who drank far too much and never got any exercise in my 20s.

I too have no comparison - had DD1 at 37, DD2 three weeks after my 40th birthday - but I suspect I would have found motherhood even more overwhelming in my 20s. Not least because I'd probably have had at least one more child and be exhausted by now.

Blackduck · 21/03/2006 19:32

MI having seen the photos I'd have never put you in your 40s ...what ARE you doing on WWW's 6 weeks, 10 years younger thread??!
BTW had ds at 39, am knackered, but no more knackered than my neighbour who has just had her first in her early 30s.. (and I'm contemplating No2 - on and off...)

moondog · 21/03/2006 19:34

Blu,did you have a subsequent child?
At what age?

expatinscotland · 21/03/2006 19:42

All I can say is, hat's off to you 40+ ladies!

I feel dog ass tired and I'm 35 and in good shape. I just had my second 3 months ago.

Arabica · 21/03/2006 19:55

Having babies is tiring at any age. I turned 40 when DS was 5 months old and am now 44 and pg with my 2nd. I think I have enough energy for 2--ask me again in 6 months!

Mercy · 21/03/2006 19:55

I had dd at 37.7 and ds at 40.4.

With no. 2 the early weeks were extremely tiring amongst other things, because dd was at playgroup in the morning and I had to take her and bring her back every day, ditto nursery school but now she's in full time reception it is a little easier.

You can't just take things easy on some days if you have an older child. Having said that I assume your friend's child has been at full time school for some time and so at least there will be a good six hours in between pick-ups.

So basically ime, I don't think it's harder but it is more tiring IYSWIM.

On the other hand, there is 7 years bt. my brother and I. My said mum it was like having a first child twice over. There was so much she had forgotten.

Sorry, not being much help am I?

Enid · 21/03/2006 19:56

I feel less knackered in this pg than in any of the others

and I will be 40 this year

Blu · 22/03/2006 15:46

Moondog: no - I might have done, quite quickly, had DP been up for it (he's the one who thought we were too old and knackered!), but certainly can't comment on what it is like being older and having more than one to deal with!

oliveoil · 22/03/2006 15:49

I had dd1 at 32 and dd2 at 34 and feel like a crock of shite. Am 36.

I think it is tiring at any age tbh.

expatinscotland · 22/03/2006 15:50

Same here, OO! Was 32 and 34 as well. Was glad to get it out the road before I got any older b/c I already felt so tired whilst pregnant w/dd2.

oliveoil · 22/03/2006 15:52

In my defence, I must say that the past 6 months have been hideous in terms of illness and lack of sleep.

A week in a health farm would sort me out I think.

expatinscotland · 22/03/2006 15:55

A lotto jackpot win would sort me out.

mommie · 22/03/2006 16:02

the big drawback i found (having had my first at 41) is that my mum is in her late 70s, and altho she would love to do more, physically she just can't. so we rely heavily on a nursery which is a shame really cos "granny care" is great

mommie · 22/03/2006 16:03

ps; what's that saying...make sure you have kids young enough so your parents can raise them

goldenoldie · 22/03/2006 20:39

Agree with you mommie - the real drawback is that the kids miss out on grandparents - too old or dead before your kids get to know them.

aviatrix · 22/03/2006 21:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

helsy · 22/03/2006 21:31

I was 40 when dd2 was 3 months old and I don't think the fact I'm knackered is anything to do with being older, more to do with her being my second (had my first at 34). Luckily my mum was 19 when she had me, so my girls have a nain who's still relatively young and active. I, on the other hand, will be decrepid and bonkers by the time they get to have children -so they may end up looking after me and their children at the same time if they wait as long as I did!

moondog · 22/03/2006 21:32

Helsy,you must be Welsh!

Aviatrix,that is wonderful!

Clary · 22/03/2006 21:34

I had my 3rd at 39. It seems to be going fine so far (I'm 42 now).
In my 30s and especially after having my first, I made a big effort to get a healthier lifestyle (better eating, more exercise, no alcohol or caffeine) which I'm sure helped me feel and be better, more energetic etc. Like Mog and MI, I was a bit of a drunken stopout (as a colleague recently reminded me) in my 20s and early 30s.
Mommie's point about grandparents is a good one tho.

Flip

1 2