Excluding a situation where someone has to move back home only temporarily, at what age should a parent throw an adult child out? I say 30.

Eh, I don't like the term "throw out." I don't think they should ever outright throw the child out. But if by 30 they show no signs of getting out, they might wanna try to start nudging a bit.

I think by 30 years old a child should be out on his/her own and start experiencing life without being under the apron strings anymore.

I think by the time they're 52, they need to be getting the fuck out.

There's no justifiable reason to still be living with your parents past 25 IMO.

GrayWolf wrote:

There's no justifiable reason to still be living with your parents past 25 IMO.

Oh I could think of a couple of reasons.

Supernova wrote:

Oh I could think of a couple of reasons.

Let's hear it.

Well for one thing, you have the economy to consider. Even before things got as bad as they did, I heard all the time about families that they were having relatives all move in together because it just got too expensive everybody trying to live on their own.

And then, let's take a look at instances when there is an elderly family member in the home who requires much attention and there's no money for assisted living or a rest home, and no one person has enough time to do everything as care provider, you basically need everybody right there to help when needed.

My son can stay as long as he wishes as long as he is in college or after college, is working hard at paying off student loans.

I wouldn't let him live here unless it was financially bettering him and setting him up better for life once he does move out.

Exactly. People hear of someone staying at home after graduating high school and they make it out like it's automatically a bad thing, but depending on the circumstance, it isn't. I don't think if your kid has a job and is pulling his weight around the house, that there would be many grounds for throwing them out. Now if they were just freeloading and not bothering to look for work, then yes I say give them the heave ho.

A parent should put their 25+ child on notice that by their 30th birthday, they'll be expected to vacate. It's not healthy to live with your parents forever.

JM130ELM wrote:

A parent should put their 25+ child on notice that by their 30th birthday, they'll be expected to vacate. It's not healthy to live with your parents forever.

And yet that's what the ancient Indians of America did all the time. A man married a woman, he moved into her home which was her mother's home and there would be the whole family there in the same house...so you have to wonder when it became 'not healthy' for the entire clan to be together.

I'm gonna go with the consensus and say thirty too, but more and more adults are living with their parents into their thirties, I heard. Especially in this economy.

Marc™ wrote:

I think by the time they're 52, they need to be getting the fuck out.

LOL! So crazy.

Chris wrote:

I'm gonna go with the consensus and say thirty too, but more and more adults are living with their parents into their thirties, I heard. Especially in this economy.

This whole thing reminds me of the last episode of Roseanne, Darlene and her husband decide to stay with Roseanne and Dan for a while to raise their baby there, and David says it's a tribal thing because historically, that's how families were raised, all generations together, not babysitters and daycares. And considering how much the whole nuclear family thing has been a massive fail over the last couple of generations (of course we were an exception :biggrin: ), it does make you wonder.

Then, you have to consider the fact that most parents who do have their kids in daycare all day because there's nobody home to watch the kids, are paying top dollars that they don't have, for the privilege of their kids being raised by strangers, and if they're ever late, they pay extra on that top which is like owing a shark and him charging you 300% interest...it seems like the ends of being 'independent' and away from your parents and/or other relatives don't really justify the means of having kids and then they're never home and raised by people you pay.

Chris wrote:

I'm gonna go with the consensus and say thirty too, but more and more adults are living with their parents into their thirties, I heard. Especially in this economy.

Only because of the shitty economy do I empathize with adults past the age of twenty-five still living with mom and dad. Seriously though, by age thirty someone really should be on their way out the door, or they should at least be following a plan to leave in the near future.

I think a parent should always offer a home to their kids, no matter what the age. As for what age a child should move out on their own and what age a parent should be giving them that nudge. I say within 2 years of them finishing or drop out of school. I moved out when I was 21, but had to move back in when my lease was up. I'll leave again soon. I'm eying no later than the end of 2011 to move out again.