Marisawright

Yes it's hard these days. It's not just the tighter controls, it's that their are fewer children around to adopt. It's not an easy thing to do, anyway. One of my friends got approved for adoption and she was SO excited, it had been her dream for years. But she wasn't prepared for the actual process. They got approved and then got told to wait for the call. You're told that the call may come tomorrow, or you may be waiting a year or more, so you can't make any plans. When you get the call, one partner has to give up work on the spot (there must be one stay-at-home parent). Then you visit to see the baby and you have to take a piece of clothing you've worn, which you leave with the baby so he/she gets used to your scent. Then you have just a few days to equip the nursery and get your home ready, then you go and pick up the baby and go home! You can just imagine how overwhelming it is to have no baby one day, and a week later you're a mother. No nine months to get ready for it! She really struggled at first to bond with the baby. I think she was lucky that it was a small baby - some people adopt at older ages and I'd think it must be much harder to think of it as your own.

What do you mean by withdrawals? If you take your lump sum before you leave Australia and put it in your bank account, it is simply savings in your bank and the UK government won't care where it came from. Once you are resident in the UK, you will simply declare any interest you earn on those savings, and also declare the 10% tax which your Australian bank will withhold from your interest (so you're not taxed twice). If you convert your super to a pension and then receive pension payments, you will declare those payments as ordinary income on your UK tax return. If you leave your super in Australia and withdraw lump sums from it in the UK, then the UK government may tax you on foreign currency gains you've made by holding investments in Australia. They are not interested in historical tax paid or not paid, so whether the original payments were deducted/undeducted is irrelevant.

Yes, I had the same pressure - when I got married (at 20!), my mother-in-law showed me two teddy bears, sitting in her airing cupboard, and said, "they're ready when you are"!! Thankfully my Mum said, "don't have kids unless you want to". In the end I never did have children and I have to say, at 60 I'm still waiting for the regrets to kick in. Who knows what my life would've been like with kids, but it's been a wonderful life without them.

Again, I don't think nature bears that out. In nature, many animals never get to mate let alone have offspring. That can be due to opportunity, or it could be the pecking order in a herd or pack (only the dominant animals are allowed to reproduce). Humans are unique in being able (sometimes) to make a choice about it, rather than being dictated by circumstances. In fact if every single animal (or every single human) in the world did reproduce, we'd be in even more trouble than we are now!

I don't disagree. No one should be having kids because they "should" (which was the attitude often pushed on to my generation) - it's up to each individual. But what I see now is the opposite: young women who really want a baby, being pressured into not fulfilling that desire because today's society demands you have to 'achieve' first. That would be fine if getting pregnant in her thirties was guaranteed, but it isn't -- these days most of us have trouble predicting what we'll be doing in 5 years let alone 10 or 15.

Your time will come. Maybe you're just being more sensible, and bypassing the mistakes and failed relationships/marriages some of us have along the way! I was in two long relationships (one a marriage) before I finally found my current oh, and by that time I was fifty. So you've got a long way to go yet before you have to worry!

I think there are several factors to consider. You haven't found the right guy yet, so of course it makes sense for you to be wait. What worries me is when I see a young couple in their twenties who say they're delaying, even though they definitely want kids. Let's face it, there are so many things that can happen. What if they wait till she's 35, then nothing happens? By the time they've tried for a while, realised there may be a problem, started investigations, tried treatments, failed, tried IVF, failed multiple times -suddenly they're too old for adoption and have missed the boat. Whereas if they'd tried for a baby in their 20's they would've had ample time to explore all options. Or take another example - married at 19, decided to wait till 30 to have a child. Marriage broke up at 29. Didn't find another partner until she was 40 and discovered she was already going through early menopause. There are two ways to look at having children young. True, you miss out on having that freedom in your twenties or thirties - but on the flip side, your kids are going to be grown up and independent when you're still in your forties, which you may think is old but is actually the best years of a woman's life - you're still looking good, but you've got all that life experience behind you.

To be fair, the general tone of the preceding discussion was that there's no harm in delaying motherhood if you want.

It's extremely rare for women to fall pregnant naturally after the age of 45 and even then, the risk of mutations is a lot higher once you're in your forties. My mother and my sister both had late babies in their early forties. My sister would've loved to have more but once she got past 45 she was told the chances were vanishingly small - and so it proved.

You are absolutely right, of course. But the key is that my attitude MAY have totally changed. What if it didn't, where would I be then? Trapped in a restricted, impoverished new life, and grieving the life I was perfectly happy with before some idiot promised me my feelings would change. Several mothers have posted here to say that motherhood is very tough, but the overwhelming love you feel for your children makes up for it. If you don't feel that overwhelming love, then there's no upside, there's just duty. For me, it was too big a risk to take on other people's say-so, considering it meant putting my whole life on the line. I don't have a good track record with that kind of thing! I once went abseiling because I was told it would be an amazing, life-changing experience which would give me new-found confidence and cure my fear of heights. I did the whole course, including the longest abseil (which some people didn't attempt) - hated every minute of it, didn't lose my fear of heights and would never do it again. Ditto when someone told me that once I'd tried a roller-coaster I'd love it - didn't. My own sister was like me, got pregnant by accident and dreaded the birth because she was sure she would hate being a mother. She was amazed how strongly she felt for the baby and she went on to have two more, so you'd think that would reassure me, yes? BUT although she says she feels "like a lioness who would do anything to protect her cubs", I think her "maternal instinct" is more like a man's than a woman's. I wonder how she would feel if her oh hadn't given up work to be the house-husband. She's a high-flying career woman, took the absolute minimum of maternity leave, and now leaves home at 6am and isn't back until after the kids are in bed. She doesn't have to work (her oh has pots of money) and he would dearly love the whole family to retire to their holiday villa in France, but she won't. Besides, as Bound4Tassie says, you can't miss what you've never experienced.

I read Naomi's comment as tongue in cheek, though I do think "cuteness" is a protective thing. Yes there are herd animals who look after other babies (e.g. elephants, meerkats) but it's not a common thing in the animal world: for instance hippos will kill other's offspring to prevent competition, and it's very hard to get some species to suckle another's young if the mother dies. As for fertility and safety - actually I agree the best time to have babies is in your twenties, but I certainly wouldn't tell any young woman she "should" have babies at that age. She should have one if she wants one - and if she wants one, she won't be asking whether to go ahead, or whether she can afford it - the drive will be too strong for that.

Which just goes to show you didn't even bother to read my post properly. I did not make that statement and that's not what they were liking. I'll try again. There are TWO kinds of maternal instinct you're referring to: first there's the love of babies and the desire for one of your own, and then there's loving the child once it arrives. The two are not connected and it's possible to feel one without the other. The vast majority of animals and birds express no interest in, and will not care for, other individual's babies - so the "love of babies" maternal instinct is a HUMAN thing. And we don't even know how widespread it is in humans, because it's just not allowed in our society for women NOT to coo over a baby. As you can see on these forums, though, it's not universal by any means. Then there's the love for the child once it arrives. Again, it is expected in our society that all women fall madly in love with their babies. It's true for many and it's great for those it happens to, but it does NOT happen to everyone - and it's really irresponsible of some people to pressure women who don't feel the desire to have kids with cliches like "oh you must have children, it completes you, you'll never regret it, blah blah blah...". Because some women never do get that madly in love feeling, and without it, kids are tough.

See, that's the kind of statement that upsets me. That statement implies there is something "unnatural" because I don't feel clucky about babies. I don't think you can say that of other species, because other species don't know how to use birth control - they don't have babies because they have a maternal instinct, they have babies because they're an inevitable consequence of sex! Besides, many other species don't take any interest in babies which are not their own - and mamy even kill other mother's offspring which suggests the opposite! After a baby is born, then that's a different kind of maternal instinct. I do know women who couldn't be bothered with babies before their own child arrived, and then they were devoted. Again, however, I don't think you can draw any conclusion from other species or even from women in general: you don't know how they feel, only how they behave. If I had ever got pregnant, there is no way I would've walked away from that child - it would be my responsibility as a human being, regardless of whether I turned all gooey-eyed.

This is what always worried me. So many women told me I MUST NOT miss the chance to have children because, "you may not want a baby now, but you will adore it when it arrives". But I know that's doesn't happen to 100% of women, so what if it didn't happen to me?

So true! I'm over sixty and never had children, and often feel I have to make excuses for it. But the truth is I just never felt broody, and have never seen what's so especially cute about babies (they're just little people). I couldn't see the point of giving up my comfortable life just because I "should" have kids, especially since there are too many people in the world already. Many mothers have told me I must have kids because "once that baby arrives, you'll fall in love" - but I always thought, what if I don't? I can hardly hand it back and say, "no thanks". It always seemed like a very big step to take on someone else's say-so!! They also told me I'd regret it when I got old - not so far. In fact, I think I'm lucky, because so many of my friends are totally lost and feel like their lives have ended because their kids have grown up and moved on. I don't miss what I never had, and my life is continuing as it always has.

Definitely over-thinking it. No one can really afford to have kids, you just manage somehow when they arrive. I don't have kids myself but what happens when my friends have kids is that they change their lifestyle. Right now you're probably buying more clothes, going on more holidays, eating out/drinking more often etc. Your priorities (and your opportunities for all that) will change once you have children and that will free up money to help pay for them.

I think that's because, even though you went overseas for a while, you were regarded as living continuously in Australia up to that point. So you weren't just in Oz for a full year before claiming, you'd been in Oz for however-many-years before that. If we went overseas now (at 61) and became deemed non-resident, so our continuous residence was broken, the two year rule would apply.

Interesting! I did know you could get credits simply by being resident in the UK but unemployed, although I thought you had to be registered unemployed. For some reason I didn't connect that with the fact that you (and my husband) will have a few years in the UK before reaching retirement age! There is a spouse pension too, as you say - I still can't get my head around that one!

I have! I'm curious how you got to 3.77 a week - I thought you hadn't worked in the UK at all? I just went through it as if I had never worked in the UK and my result was precisely 0.00.

Thanks, that is brilliant! This section is pretty clear as far as I can see: "The Social Security Agreement between the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia was terminated by Australia and ended on 28 February 2001. When in force the agreement helped people moving between the two countries by allowing ... periods of Australian residence to count as periods when UK National Insurance Contributions had been paid in claims for UK basic State Pension... For people living in or coming to the UK after the agreement ended, the UK Government has made special arrangements to allow periods of residence in Australia, up to April 2001, to be taken into account in claims for basic State Pension and bereavement benefits. " That post also says that if we were to move to Italy or Spain, for instance, I'd lose the extra pension. However in either of those places, I'd be able to claim the Australian pension as they have a social security arrangement so no loss! My husband is in a similar situation to your wife. He has never worked in the UK and would really prefer to retire, but he would work for a year or two before retirement if that would mean getting the UK pension. I had hoped they might give me some advice on that but my enquiry, while acknowledged, has never been answered.

No they wouldn't, unless their partner is older and is already in receipt of the Australian Centrelink pension BEFORE they leave the country. Neither of you will be eligible to claim the Australian Centrelink pension once you become resident in the UK. If you remain in Australia and your wife goes to claim the Centrelink pension, they will insist that she claims her UK pension first, then they will reduce the Centrelink pension accordingly. It is not possible to purchase a UK government pension, though you can make SOME back payments IF you have worked in the UK for at least a year. I believe it is possible to purchase a commercial product just like it's possible to purchase a commercial pension in Australia with your superannuation.

Many thanks for that, now I am confused. My pension forecast says that if I produce evidence of my Australian work record before 2001, I may be able to claim those years "as if I had paid NI contributions for those years". Whereas that example implies that I can use those years to meet the minimum qualifications, but my actual pension will be calculated on actual NI contributions. If that's true, that's a bummer!

I've been researching this for several months so I've already been through most of those! The BPIA website is especially useful and thanks to them, I already have my British pension forecast and have paid some extra NI contributions to ensure I'll get the full UK pension. I think you said your wife had worked in the UK - if so she can request her pension forecast here: https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement Frozen pensions are irrelevant to you - that refers to the fact that UK pensioners living in Australia don't get increases in the UK pension. For Australians moving abroad, there is no freezing - there's just no pension! I'm confident the information I've given you about getting the Australian pension is correct. The trouble is, 90% of the information is for Brits moving to Australia. There is much less information for Brits returning to the UK - and none for Australians retiring to the UK. So I haven't been able to get any certainty about whether my husband, who has never worked in the UK, will be able to get a UK pension.

You will not be able to claim the Australian government pension at all in that case - you have to be living in Australia on the day you claim it, and remain resident for a period of two years. If you think about it, that's not practical - you'd basically have to sell up, come back for two years, then sell up and move back all over again! With the British pension, you need a certain minimum amount of NI contributions to become eligible. So you'll need to work in the UK when you get there, to build up your contributions. Then but only then, you can use your Australian pre-2001 work record to count towards the UK pension, but you'll need evidence from each of your employers with dates etc. What I can't tell you is how many years you'd need to work. I did find one site which said that if you're going to use your Australian work record, you need only one year's NI contributions - but it wasn't the official govt site and I haven't been able to find confirmation anywhere. If you do, please let me know!!