A woman who chose to have a third child at 44 while in debt and renting says waiting for “every financial box to be ticked” would have meant missing her chance to have another baby.
Vineta Senberga became a mum nearly a decade ago to her nine-year-old twins, but she and her husband had been debating giving them a sibling for some time.
The 46-year-old said there were “plenty of sensible reasons to leave our family exactly as it was” – but couldn’t shake the desire to have a third child.
READ MORE: ‘I married a bus – it’s the love of my life and I got a cleaning job to be near it’
- Advertisement -
Despite their financial circumstances being less than ideal, and being called “selfish and irresponsible” for having a child in her mid-forties, Vineta says things have worked out regardless.
“Since putting my story out online I’ve heard hundreds of opinions, and it’s clear a lot of people believe you shouldn’t have a child before you own a property or have a certain amount saved,” the stay-at-home mum, from London, told What’s The Jam.
“Some go further – that you should have major savings first, to protect yourself against everything: job loss, illness, a financial crisis at home or in the world.
“And I think, simply: this is life.
“You can’t prepare against everything.
- Advertisement -
“I wouldn’t want to spend decades building security before having a family, only to realise I’d waited too long.
“Most people just live their ordinary lives – some debt, little or no savings at times.
“Things come and go, and you adapt as life changes – with your children, and while you’re raising them.”
- Advertisement -
Vineta and her husband rent in London, and always have.
She said: “I don’t see that as a problem, or as some measure of how we’re doing.
“At the time [of considering a third child] we had debt and no real savings, just a small buffer, because everything spare was going on clearing what we owed.
“Everything else was more stable [before having the twins], because it was just the two of us and we were both working.
“We had some debt, but nothing unmanageable – it was insignificant.
“Honestly, neither time we had children was a ‘good’ time – the kind that looks good on paper. “We were in a better position with the twins because it was just the two of us and we were younger, but financially we were an average family – a bit of debt, not much saved.
“With our third, we thought about it for longer, because we already had two children, so it’s not a decision you take lightly.
“But I’ve learned that things pass.
“The debt built up after the twins, because I didn’t go back to work – childcare for two cost more than I earned – so money was tight for a few years.
“Then I went back [to work], chipped away at it, and cleared it just before our third was born.
“By then I was older, but I also knew far more about what actually matters to me.
“For me, having children has been the most important part of my life.
“Years passed, and we decided to give the twins a sibling too.
“And siblings matter to me personally – I grew up without that closeness with my own, and I wanted my children to always have each other.
“Life is never completely secure.
“Jobs go, relationships change, economies change.
“You can prepare, but you can’t remove all risk.
“Waiting for every box to be ticked would have meant missing the chance altogether.”
READ MORE: ‘I have 11 kids and counting – people accuse me of being ADDICTED to pregnancy’
