Finances and Kids

**simpleyme** · 05-13-2009, 08:04 AM

we had kids super young , we had jobs and a crappy trailer now the kids are all but grown we are still fairly young have money the kids never did without and do not remember when we did not have much,i would never have put off having a child because of money

**geojen** · 05-13-2009, 09:07 AM

We are not in total financial order and just had one kid (6 months old now). We will definitely have another before all our goals are reached (for us, that means no debt besides the mortgage and fully funded retirement). We are chosing to balance financial goals with personal ones--we want to have our kids when we are younger (I am 26, DH 31), I am trying to work it into my career path, etc. If we waited for the money to be right, we'd always find another reason why we should wait a little longer.

That being said, we are not in financial "disorder." We have a plan to reach our goals and are working that plan.

**disneysteve** · 05-13-2009, 09:29 AM

I think having a kid is like any other financial goal - buying a house or car for example. You shouldn't do it without some degree of advanced planning. No matter how frugal you are, having a child involves some added expenses: food, clothing, medical care, equipment, furniture, etc.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck, barely making ends meet each month, adding a kid to the picture may bury you and you should probably wait until you get in better shape. That doesn't mean, however, that you need to be totally debt free, have a fully funded EF and be maxing out your retirement plans before having a baby.

We got married in July 1992. I finished residency and started working in July 1993. We bought our house in April 1994. We had our daughter in September 1995, by which time DW had been out of the workforce for almost a year. We had some savings. We were putting some money away for retirement. I was repaying my student loans and still had a long way to go. My wife may have still had a car payment. But we were living lean, well below our means and felt that we could easily absorb the added costs of having another person to provide for.

**MonkeyMama** · 05-13-2009, 09:47 AM

WE are conservative, low-risk, planners. BAsically, we wanted to easily live on one income and have a good years' expenses in the bank before we considered having a child. (We never had debt outside mortgage. We put 25% down on mortgage, and had a reasonable fixed payment).

Some reasons were it was important for us to be home with our kids, and because I was the sole breadwinner so we had a lot to prepare for (maternity leave and possible bed rest, medical problems, etc.).

In the end my spouse got laid off like the minute I got pregnant so we didn't quite reach our savings goal. Everything else went about as good as could be (including how quickly we had both kids - we knew it would be easier financially if they were closer in age) but I ended up working part-time a few months after my second child. It was much tighter than we planned on some levels, easier on other levels. We could have sacrificed a lot more though if we *needed* to. It really depends on your personality. We originally planned to have kids much later because of our personalities, but things were just going so financially well we had kids 5 years earlier than we originally planned. (Such a large change because we moved to a lower-cost area). For us the "hard" thing is we were used to a lot more income and financial comfort. The longer you wait the harder it is to make the financial sacrifice of children in some regard. If you wait too long there are luxuries and careers you may need to sacrifice, which gets harder on many levels. I found we had it much easier than both our less well-off and more well-off peers.

I would say overall, as prepared as we were, having children was financially challenging. I am personally glad we didn't have them any sooner. But I am also glad we didn't wait. WE could have totally paid off our house and had kids at 30 as originally planned. It could have turned out okay, but I wouldn't trade the last 6 years of my life for anything.

I think balance is important.

(I am 31, with a 6-year-old today).

**DebbieL** · 05-13-2009, 10:49 AM

I was young (22) and not in financial order when I had my DD16. I wouldn't change a thing now, but if I'd been smart I would have been in better financial shape first (I didn't exactly "plan" her). Like another poster - she never did without. Luckily I have very generous parents who like to help out with their grandkids, and her dad's parents are also wonderful grandparents. They have taken her on many trips to Hawaii, etc. I now have my act together financially (or getting there), and we are currently planning on sending her off to college to live in the student housing ($$$), and will do so debt-free. It can be done - but it is probably more sensible to be financially sound first!

**onefrugalmom** · 05-13-2009, 12:07 PM

I have a 2 year old and I had her before my finances were perfect- I dont think they will ever be perfect. As long as you can afford to feed and properly care for your child I would do it when you are ready. I am waiting to have a second child to be a little more comfortable but hope for that to happen within the next two years. It is amazing how you can afford things that you didnt think you could when you have no choice.

**Inkstain82** · 05-13-2009, 01:08 PM

My parents used to say that if you wait to have kids until you can afford it, you never will.

I'm glad that our first is coming along now that we have things more or less under control (or at least not death spiraling quite so hard), but there's also a point where you can't let your life be dictated by a series of numbers in a bank's computer. Having a kid is such an important part of the human experience, I'd hate to miss out on it for any reason.

**FrugalFish** · 05-13-2009, 01:27 PM

I think it's a rare person who has perfect finances early enough in life to have kids- I'm sure there are a few, but not many.

We were married 14 years before DD was born (she's 3) and our financial situation was, and is currently, very stable. We didn't wait that long because of financial instability, it was other reasons, but I regret waiting so long as she will be my one and only

I do think I'm a better parent as a mostly financially stable person. It's one less thing to worry about which makes me a calmer, more patient, parent- but perhaps that's just being an older parent too...

**Scanner** · 05-13-2009, 02:16 PM

Well, knowing that everyone was doing it wrong - I figure I know better than God (or nature). I decided to do it in reverse. I decided I am going to have kids when I am 65, and have money when I am young, and go on cruises around the world first, and then when I am 65, I would raise kids but eventually be broke.

. . .

. . . Psyche!!!!

**swanson719** · 05-13-2009, 04:27 PM

DW and I are in decent shape financially, but because of her medical we have to wait to adopt until she's healthy(er) again. Even then, the cost of adoption can be prohibitive, even with the adoption tax credit. Adoption is very racist when it comes to the cost, and the different medical factors of the parents plays a big part as well. For us to adopt a white baby who's mom was tobacco and alcohol free during the pregnancy runs close to $40,000 on average when it's all said and done. Our cousins recently adopted a baby who's dad was unknown, race or otherwise, and the mom (mulatto) smoked all through the pregnancy and used alcohol moderately during the first 2 trimesters, and it cost them $15,000. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that different race babies cost so much different, but that's how it is. Anyshu...

**PrincessPerky** · 05-13-2009, 07:02 PM

I think 'in order' is a very personal term.

We were not in terrible financial shape when we had our first, but then we weren't in great shape either. And 7 years later we still aren't in great shape, but I wouldn't trade him or the other 3 for better finances.

Though if you are the planning type, go ahead and plan for a certain goal, you might get it. But if your biological clock ticks down faster than your finances tick up, don't feel you have to have every item lined up or else, because life tends to work out.

The kids, they turn out OK, even with smoking parents or broke ones, or whatever, they tend to be OK. Of course we want better than OK, but, any loving family is better than OK right off the bat.

**Broken Arrow** · 05-13-2009, 08:30 PM

Well, none of our kids are planned, and our financial house was a rickety wreck the entire time. In an ideal world-- a world that I would have liked to have planned out better if it was at all possible- yes, it's best to have your financial house in order as much as possible before having children.

In practice though....

**LivingAlmostLarge** · 05-14-2009, 07:37 AM

Sounds like most people weren't completely prepared.

**Snave** · 05-14-2009, 06:58 PM

We were actually in good shape. I am not sure if we really had any debt other than the house and were socking away the max in our 401K's each year. I had a pretty good job with a good income when we married and we paid off some of my wifes debts (cc and student loans) right after marriage. We had kids a few years later and were lucky to always be financially healthy.

Finances and Kids