Page 6 | Average motherhood age

moonsovermiami · 2025-03-09T15:08:42+00:00

Motherhood and age. I know this has been done a million times But... I'm interested to know, among your circles what is the most common age to be having baby no 1, 2 etc Just curious...

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

TMess · 11/03/2025 16:15

Based on my experience with having older parents I would never have even considered having them past 35, and we wanted a large family, so had to get started early. When I had my first at 21 I was one of the youngest mothers in my friend and broad acquaintance group, and my most recent, at 31, I was the oldest with a baby, most of my peers are finished.

SouthLondonMum22 · 11/03/2025 16:19

Wildflowers99 · 11/03/2025 16:01

I feel like there are a number of very defensive ‘older’ mums on here. We have no issues acknowledging having a baby at 18 is far from ideal, but seem to have massive issues acknowledging there are quite significant downsides to having older parents as well. Why?

Older parents are relatively recent in the scheme of things. Yes women have been having babies at 45 since forever, but those women would’ve likely had 3 or 4 children already, so they had a clutch of older siblings in most cases. When I was growing up, most children were born to parents in their late 20s or early 30s, with 2 or 3 siblings and younger grandparents. They had a wider family which I think is extremely beneficial for the development of children as well as the ‘village’ to help parents. I really enjoyed my childhood, and was one of 4 born to parents in their 20s.

I had my second, and last, at 30, so a little later, and my kids don’t have as many siblings as I did. So I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m not one of those parents mentioned above.

I think there will be fewer generations in the family, less grandparent support, and longer and earlier caring for elderly parents. I think children are becoming less and less accustomed to being part of a wider family unit, and more and more used to being the sole focus of their parents usually as an only child. I don’t think this is quite as healthy for children if I’m honest, although that’s a broad brush and many will be fine.

Financially I think it makes little difference as sadly due to incompetent governance (thanks Tories) and global events, somebody in their mid 30s probably has the lifestyle and earnings of somebody in their mid 20s around the millennium. But obviously it’s an important consideration and I can absolutely see why financial stability matters, I was very lucky to reach that a bit earlier.

Show quote history

I'm not defensive. I just don't see any significant downsides to having my children at 36+. I also still ended up with 3 children because I had twins.

Fewer generations, Grandparent support (which is a never a guarantee anyway) etc all irrelevant as to when deciding to have children for me though I understand that isn't the case for everyone.

Pinkandcake · 11/03/2025 16:29

Wildflowers99 · 11/03/2025 16:01

I feel like there are a number of very defensive ‘older’ mums on here. We have no issues acknowledging having a baby at 18 is far from ideal, but seem to have massive issues acknowledging there are quite significant downsides to having older parents as well. Why?

Older parents are relatively recent in the scheme of things. Yes women have been having babies at 45 since forever, but those women would’ve likely had 3 or 4 children already, so they had a clutch of older siblings in most cases. When I was growing up, most children were born to parents in their late 20s or early 30s, with 2 or 3 siblings and younger grandparents. They had a wider family which I think is extremely beneficial for the development of children as well as the ‘village’ to help parents. I really enjoyed my childhood, and was one of 4 born to parents in their 20s.

I had my second, and last, at 30, so a little later, and my kids don’t have as many siblings as I did. So I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m not one of those parents mentioned above.

I think there will be fewer generations in the family, less grandparent support, and longer and earlier caring for elderly parents. I think children are becoming less and less accustomed to being part of a wider family unit, and more and more used to being the sole focus of their parents usually as an only child. I don’t think this is quite as healthy for children if I’m honest, although that’s a broad brush and many will be fine.

Financially I think it makes little difference as sadly due to incompetent governance (thanks Tories) and global events, somebody in their mid 30s probably has the lifestyle and earnings of somebody in their mid 20s around the millennium. But obviously it’s an important consideration and I can absolutely see why financial stability matters, I was very lucky to reach that a bit earlier.

Show quote history

Nailed it!

Somewhere in the middle is ideal. Starting for your first at 37 isn’t something I would have ever wanted to end up doing, because if it doesn’t work out - and it doesn’t for 1/6 couples, by the time your realise then the stress that must cause isn’t worth the financial gain from having a career in your most fertile years.

27&31 for me

Wildflowers99 · 11/03/2025 16:29

SouthLondonMum22 · 11/03/2025 16:19

I'm not defensive. I just don't see any significant downsides to having my children at 36+. I also still ended up with 3 children because I had twins.

Fewer generations, Grandparent support (which is a never a guarantee anyway) etc all irrelevant as to when deciding to have children for me though I understand that isn't the case for everyone.

Edited

Show quote history

I think having your parents for less of your life and caring duties starting earlier and lasting longer are a significant downside?

All the elderly people I know who swore they would make proper plans for their infirm years, and seemed very physically and mentally fit at the time, have basically made no other plans and now want care from their middle aged children. So im always a little sceptical when people say their elderly years are all accounted for and they’ll want nothing from their kids. I think being very old and vulnerable causes a change of heart.

SouthLondonMum22 · 11/03/2025 16:52

Wildflowers99 · 11/03/2025 16:29

I think having your parents for less of your life and caring duties starting earlier and lasting longer are a significant downside?

All the elderly people I know who swore they would make proper plans for their infirm years, and seemed very physically and mentally fit at the time, have basically made no other plans and now want care from their middle aged children. So im always a little sceptical when people say their elderly years are all accounted for and they’ll want nothing from their kids. I think being very old and vulnerable causes a change of heart.

Show quote history

I would have traded that with the significant downsides of raising a child in poverty, unlikely having the career progression I have today and having a child with the wrong person as I didn't meet my husband until closer to 30.

Financial stability, career progression and having children with the right man were the priorities for me. Sometimes that isn't going to be until your late 30's.

Flowersforcharlie · 11/03/2025 16:59

I was 33 with my first and 35 with my second. They’re now aged 22 and 20. This was pretty much average in my friendship circles (from school and university). Almost all my friends’ kids are around about the same age as mine.

january1244 · 11/03/2025 17:06

@Pinkandcake I meant I see benefits as a safety net (which I'm also very glad exists). If I lost my job or became ill I'd be grateful for them until I could find another job. But I wouldn't have planned for a child knowing at the outset I would be reliant, unless as @LavenderBlue19 says that situation would never change. By taking a bit more time, putting in the hours pre-kids (way in excess of forty hours), and pushing for promotions, it's meant I have more flexibility in my hours and have options for my children

@Wildflowers99 I agree, I wanted more children as I grew up with a bigger family than what I have got, and a very big extended family on both sides. The reality is I have had two and we're both not sure we can cope with a third, so back on the fence there

Wildflowers99 · 11/03/2025 17:08

SouthLondonMum22 · 11/03/2025 16:52

I would have traded that with the significant downsides of raising a child in poverty, unlikely having the career progression I have today and having a child with the wrong person as I didn't meet my husband until closer to 30.

Financial stability, career progression and having children with the right man were the priorities for me. Sometimes that isn't going to be until your late 30's.

Show quote history

Well yes but that’s your personal situation which sounds unlucky. Most people would not have children ‘living in poverty’ if they were born when the parents were 28/30 (often 6 or 7 years into their career at that point). But age is concrete and for everyone. You don’t get lucky and age in reverse.

january1244 · 11/03/2025 17:12

@SouthLondonMum22 wow twins with a toddler also, you must be very busy!

Pinkandcake · 11/03/2025 17:32

january1244 · 11/03/2025 17:06

@Pinkandcake I meant I see benefits as a safety net (which I'm also very glad exists). If I lost my job or became ill I'd be grateful for them until I could find another job. But I wouldn't have planned for a child knowing at the outset I would be reliant, unless as @LavenderBlue19 says that situation would never change. By taking a bit more time, putting in the hours pre-kids (way in excess of forty hours), and pushing for promotions, it's meant I have more flexibility in my hours and have options for my children

@Wildflowers99 I agree, I wanted more children as I grew up with a bigger family than what I have got, and a very big extended family on both sides. The reality is I have had two and we're both not sure we can cope with a third, so back on the fence there

Yes I get that and I’m not knocking you for doing that of course, but the cost of living is so high, especially around housing, that for some people they’ll never earn enough to be completely self sufficient and without relying on any top-ups, despite working full times. Right now, we have a generation of young adults who are likely to never own their own home and it’s a shame because they’ll be earning decent wages so won’t qualify for top-ups, yet they still won’t ever own a property. It awful. It will be our children’s generation that have it the worst. Only the rich will be able to afford to buy property unless something drastic happens

Someone needs to do minimum wage jobs so it’s a good job that not everyone is so career focused - that’s not a dig at those that are, because we need those people as well.

SouthLondonMum22 · 11/03/2025 17:39

Wildflowers99 · 11/03/2025 17:08

Well yes but that’s your personal situation which sounds unlucky. Most people would not have children ‘living in poverty’ if they were born when the parents were 28/30 (often 6 or 7 years into their career at that point). But age is concrete and for everyone. You don’t get lucky and age in reverse.

Show quote history

My personal situation is hardly unique, especially if you factor in high expenses children bring such as nursery fees.

Age is also irrelevant if you haven't met anyone you can invision having children with at 28.

SouthLondonMum22 · 11/03/2025 17:41

january1244 · 11/03/2025 17:12

@SouthLondonMum22 wow twins with a toddler also, you must be very busy!

Very! The twins will be 1 next month. It's been a chaotic year. 😂

EMG1998 · 12/09/2025 22:47

I’m 27 and pregnant with my second lol it depends where you are in the country I believe I am out in the sticks and everyone is a lot older than me at the school gates but my city friends all have multiple kids by my age

Average motherhood age

Interested in this thread?