This isn't a big political issue, just one I have been kicking around in my mind.

Should adult children live with their parents? Please keep in mind that I am NOT talking about adult children who are developmentally disabled, mentally ill, or otherwise unable to maintain an independent residence. Nor am I talking about kids coming home temporarily during illness or crisis periods, such as that following a divorce. I am talking about PERMANENT multigenerational living arrangements involving adult children who could conceivably live on their own.

I've been reading articles in newspapers and magazines that indicate more and more adult children are remaining at home long after their high school or college graduations -- whether because affordable housing is hard to find in some areas or because the creature comforts their parents' homes offer are far above what they could afford on their own.

So my debate is this:

Should adult children live with their parents beyond the years they are in school or college?

What is a fair age or stage for a grown child to be considered 'on his/her own' and no longer eligible to live in the family home? What factors should be taken into consideration?

1./2. They shouldn't. 18 years old is a good age. The fact that they are legally an adult (that's the criteria, basically) and that they need to succeed by themselves. Just like their parents. Anyone who lives like that just for convenience need to A. Go to a financial counselor and B. Go to a psychiatrist. People like that may have psychological problems like fear of detaching or something. I don't know if I answered the questions...

I have noticed that the younger generation seems to live at home much longer than when mine did. I am not sure why this is -- as things were just as expensive and jobs were hard to come by for us in the 80s.


Should adult children live with their parents beyond the years they are in school or college?

Not the best scenario. But if they contribute fully to the expenses of the household and everything else, I don't see a problem as long as they are not married, living at home.


What is a fair age or stage for a grown child to be considered 'on his/her own' and no longer eligible to live in the family home? What factors should be taken into consideration?

I think young adults should be encouraged to get their own place and live on their own after they graduate from college. It may be the only opportunity they have to live on their own before they get married.

When my sister and her first husband got married, they decided they were going to live with his parents for a while until they had saved up enough money to buy a house. His parents had a small guest house out back so they had their own private space, etc. but otherwise it was a very communal existence.

It took my sister 2 years to figure out that he was never going to leave. He intended on living with his parents until the time he died and nothing was going to change that. Time for a divorce.

I agree with you though, people need to get out on their own and make their own way in the world. We have way too many kids who are too coddled by their parents and couldn't exist on their own for 10 minutes. Parents don't teach their kids responsibility and self-reliance today.

I lived with my in-laws for about a year while we were waiting for the military to let us know when my husband could start pilot training. We didn't have much of a choice because we didn't know when the training would begin (we actually thought it would only be a matter of a couple of months), and it was in the midst of a recession, so jobs were extremely scarce (even the highest-honors engineering graduates couldn't find employment). Mr P went to work for his dad during that time (and also delivered pizzas).

Living with the in-laws was not an experience I'd wish to go back and do, but it worked for us, knowing it was very temporary. My husband's parents lived with his mom's parents when they first had the kids (the first three years), while his father worked as an instructor pilot in order to obtain the necessary hours to go work for the airlines. When his mother's mother was ill, she in turn lived with them for the last two years of her life. I personally think that's what families are for! They take care of each other. In fact, we'd probably have fewer social troubles as a nation if we learned this value. But no able-bodied person should live with his/her parents as adults in the same way that they lived with them as children. The relationship changes, and they should of course work for a living, help with expenses and take that opportunity to save for the future.

What a great point Mrs. P! I think we forget the benefits of living with, or close to, our parents and children. Many people today don't think twice about moving across country for a job and don't take into consideration what they will miss out on: Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, who might all have an important part in their lives if they lived in the same city.

Should adult children live with their parents beyond the years they are in school or college?

It depends on whether you mean live with or life off parents.

My father died in 1981. My mother didn’t drive and was unable to take care of basic needs like shopping. I was faced with the choice of moving back in with her or running over to her place every time she needed something. I chose the former and it was a good choice.

In the years that followed she was diagnosed with cataracts, glaucoma and osteoporosis. She tripped over a hedge and broke a wrist. In 1985, her order Collie knowkced her down in the backyard and she broke a hip. I took care of her for about a year after she broke the hip, but got impossible to work and care for her at the same time. She was in the initial stages of Alzheimer’s--something I didn’t know at the time--when I put her in a nursing home in August, 1986. She lived there for 7½ years.

This cuts both ways. Aged parents must sometimes rely on adult children.

I think it's considered okay for post-graduates (be it college or HS) to remain at home for a year or two to either save up money or decide what their next step in life will be. Given the current US economy, wages, gas prices, and employment opportunities, it's not easy to "make it on your own" at the age of 18, or even 22. Give kids the time they need to make mature, informed decisions; don't just kick them out on the street - with diploma in hand - and expect them to find a $30,000 a year job. That most likely won't happen. While I'm not saying everyone should live at home after the age of 18, I do not think it's a bad thing (especially for those kids who are otherwise motivated to start their life.) Plus, some people have to stay with their parents because of health, monetary, or personal issues.

I know someone who still lives with his mother, and he's in his 40's. Sure, he doesn't have much of a romantic life, but he's happy. He and his mother are best friends, and though she doesn't need him to take care of her (because of health issues or whatnot), they have an admirable relationship. They're best friends, and you can tell that she helps and adds to his life just as much as he does to hers. So, perhaps moving away isn't in everyone's "plan", and that's okay.

1.) If they are not sapping the economic means of their parents and fully aiding and providing to the household I do not think it is entirely that big of an issue (though I personally am looking forward to leaving ).

2.) I do not think a universal age can be tacked to this. Maturity level is very important, if your child is twenty-two and still living at home but has the maturity level of an eight year old, as a parent would you let them leave? I think factors vary per case and decisions must be reached by individual families as to what to do if the need should arise.

I'm glad to see this topic bumped up, because I just ran across an article recently in the London news regarding 20 somethings staying at home. Several of them said they didn't want to "throw away" money paying rent, and that houses were too expensive.

Do they really think their parents bought a house at 22 or 25? lol I'm 40 and still can't afford one.

Just a thought.

It's probably quite likely that their parents moved into their home when they were that age, yes.

In the post-war period, much of the housing stock in the UK was already old (Victorian and Edwardian) and much of THAT was damaged by German bombs.

There was a great push to build new affordable housing in the late 1940s and 50s, and most of that was purpose-built estates owned by local councils and rented out at low cost. This trend continued until the Thatcher government, in the early 1980s, introduced a policy that allowed existing council tenants to buy their "council house", at heavily discounted rates compared to actual market value if they had been living there for a long time.

The money that councils got from this was "sequestered" - councils were not legally allowed to spend the money building more houses. It was in this period that the British housing market switched from being mainly rental, as in Continental Europe, to being mainly privately-owned, as in the USA. We now have the highest levels of owner-occupation in Europe, by some distance.

I think this has distorted the housing market somewhat - many ex-council tenants used their windfall profits to trade up in the housing market, and with limited supply this caused a house price boom that lasted about a decade, crashed, and has now boomed again to today's levels.

Young Britons in their 20s and 30s - first time buyers are now in their early 30s on average - not only have a reduced rental sector to choose from, with demography working against them to raise rental prices (it is more expensive to rent than to buy on a monthly ongoing basis, which was never true when most rentals were council-owned, as they had legal obligations of affordability), but also property prices have sky-rocketed beyond affordable levels in most of the country, particularly in the South (where most of the employment is).

Should adult children live with their parents beyond the years they are in school or college?
Given everything I've said above, I think it's reasonable to live at home for a year or two after graduation, yes.

Personally I couldn't get out fast enough - not because of any particular problems at home, but because my family lived in a quiet little village that was deadly dull for anyone in there 20s attracted by the bright lights of bigger cities. I still think it's fairly odd to live with mum & dad after 18 years old

What is a fair age or stage for a grown child to be considered 'on his/her own' and no longer eligible to live in the family home?
Again, my instinct is that anything past 25 generally means that someone is caring for frail or sick relatives, is a bit weird, or there's something unsavoury going on, so my reflex reactions to someone in their 30s or 40s still living at home are most likely to be pity, disdain, or disgust. Having said that, the housing market here does mitigate against independent living for many young people, so I often have to swallow my reflexes as products of my own time and place of upbringing and accept reality.

What factors should be taken into consideration?
Housing costs and parental health, as I've mentioned. Also, if there's some kind of family business that's based in or near the family residence (a farm, for example), then staying on there may be perfectly reasonable or even rather noble.

Should adult children live with their parents beyond the years they are in school or college?

Okay, let's first do away with the contradictory "adult children" thing. Should adults beyond the years they are in school or college live with their parents?

Why not? That's how extended families use to work. Take for instance the agricultural communities before the Industrial Age. Everyone lived under one roof: grandparents, parents, children, maybe even some cousins and uncles. I don't see any should to this at all, because it depends on the circumstances. Maybe the grown children help the parents to survive. Maybe it's a symbiotic relationship, and maybe, just maybe, that's more of a normal human behavior than leaving the extended family to begin a nuclear family.

What is a fair age or stage for a grown child to be considered 'on his/her own' and no longer eligible to live in the family home? What factors should be taken into consideration?

Freeloading on parents isn't right, so grown children should contribute what they can to the household when living with parents. That's the same as living in a communal house, which was common when I was in my 20s. But then, we were a bunch of hippie bikers, playing guitars and congas, having a grand old time like a family. Eventually, we split up to get our own places. That does seem to be a natural urge too, split off from the group and start something of your own.

The biggest factor I see for splitting away from family is personal motivation, and the biggest factor for staying with family is mutual survival. Also having loads of fun as a family group. This can happen without blood ties, BTW. Actually, my experience has been that it's more fun without blood ties. You just need imagination and a willingness to join in.

Here's another thing: Although Lydia's daughter is in her 30s and living in a single-family house in Denver, if ever she and the grandkid need a place to stay, they are welcome here. We'll figure it out. That's being family, providing the safe haven when the storms hit. So in effect, grown children don't ever fully break away. Being a parent is being a parent for life.

Heh, and Lydia's daughter has offered the same thing for us, back when we were in a tight situation. That, I do believe, is the thing called love.

That's a good set of points, AM.

Maybe it's quite natural to want to do this. Maybe, instead of this being an issue because of the supposed selfishness of the current generation of 20-somethings, maybe it's more of an issue because of the attitudes of their 40- and 50- something parents?

They were selfish enough to want to get away from their parents as soon as humanly possible when they were younger, so they could do what they wanted without the constraints of family consideration, and now they are still selfish enough to want to offload their kids as soon as humanly possible because they've "done their bit" and they want to express that selfishness again (this time in pastel slacks at the golf course rather than leather jackets at the discotheque).

This topic hits smack upon one of my favorite whipping posts: social hypocrisy (usually tied in with political correctness). Society often times tries to imply that there's something 'wrong' with activities that are outside of the mainstream..even though they harm no one, and might even be beneficial to those involved. This seems to be the case here...


Should adult children live with their parents beyond the years they are in school or college?

Why not? If the child wants to, and the parents don't have a problem with it...then what's wrong with it? Or, perhaps more succintly...what's to be gained be forcing the termination of that relationship when neither party involved desires it?

What is a fair age or stage for a grown child to be considered 'on his/her own' and no longer eligible to live in the family home? What factors should be taken into consideration?

No longer eligible? What an interesting choice of words. As if there needs to be 'eligibility' requirements set up that dictate such an arrangement. I can think of a great many things for which eligibility requirements do need to be set up...but this isn't one of them. Only two factors need to be considered...and those only need to be considered by the two parties involved, namely the parents and the child. Those two factors are whether or not the parents accept this, and whether or not the child desires it. No one else needs to concern themselves with it. Ever.

I have been in such a relationship, although only temporarily. I lived with my Dad when I had a summer job in between my undergraduate and post-graduate studies. Worked for the same company when I graduated that, but got an apartment on my own, mainly due to the commute (was about an hour each way from his house). Some of my friends were amazed that I even thought about living there, which I think represents the viewpoint of those who would raise or support the issue these questions address. I can only say that I feel sorry for those whose relationship with their parents precludes this possibility. It smacks of thinking of a child as a burden and a parent as solely a legal provider. One must then be 'eligible' to receive their support. What's wrong with that support simply being provided out of love and the desire of the parent to support the child? One doesn't need to be 'eligible' for that...or at least I have no desire to live in an environment in which that is the case. As AM pointed out, extended families used to be quite common. Isn't the breakup of the family one of the common problems cited in today's society? Rather than setting up 'eligibility' requirements...wouldn't we be better served by encouraging such things? Does a family environment need to have official termination? Who benefits from that?

I'll admit that I wanted OUT of my parents' house since I was about seventeen (I stayed till I was twenty, working my way through vocational school, and moved out six weeks after graduation). Also, I turned 40 last month. However, I don't have kids and don't play golf.

But I *do* have a thing for British men. *purr* LOL

Should adult children live with parents?

Should is a strong word. I don't believe any child SHOULD live with their parents after reaching adulthood. I do believe it CAN be a good thing...or a bad thing.

In my case, I pretty much got out of my parents house as soon as possible after finishing college. I don't necessarily regret it, but I will state that looking back on things I probably didn't have the necessary "financial maturity" I should have had and because of it, paid a heavy price financially for the next 15-20 years....right up to present day.

Had I lived at home a bit longer, I might have avoided it. Then again, I might never have left home and gotten that sense of independence that living on my own has given me. Its a tough call. I think if I had it to do over again knowing what I know now, I would have stayed at home a year or 2 longer. Financially it would have been the smart thing to do and would have positively impacted my life.

Every situation is different, and I would hesitate to judge this kind of arrangement, but these are some questions that the parents and child should be asking:

Is this relationship symbiotic? Is everyone benefiting from this arrangement? Will everyone continue to benefit from this arrangement (at least as long as everyone is healthy and able)

If not:
Is this situation temporary, being used as a stepping stone to self-sufficiency?
Do those who are doing more than their share object to it?
What measurable objectives can we use to decide if progress is being made?
Is progress being made fast enough?

I'm 26 and still live with my parents. While I would be more than happy to get out on my own, there's really no rush for me to do so. My parents offer me a good deal of freedom, and I help around the house. I moved out for a year, but came back after the death of my cat, which caused me and my mother extreme grief. She felt the pangs of empty nest settle in and, having no friends after doting on her children for 20+ years, was perpetually bored. I think she feels that with me around, there is a sense of purpose for her life. Whether or not that's worth staying home is up to everyone to decide.

I remember watching Oprah one day, and a woman in her thirties from some middle east country was talking about their culture. She spoke of how her government paid for most everything, from school to weddings. And yet, in spite of this, she still lived at home, well past 30. She said it is normal for children to live with their parents--it creates a sense of community, even when there isn't much of one outside the home.

Now that my mother is over her grief, she is now dealing with breast cancer. She just finished with a masectomy. I could leave, and I'd probably be happier, but I'm financially secure while living here at home. If I were to move out, I'd be perpetually broke, which is not something I want. What's the point in living on one's own if you can't afford to enjoy it?

*edited to excise improper generalization*

It is like that in Italy as well. Most of my cousins are in their late twenties and early to mid-thirties, and almost all of them live with their parents. Until my grandmother died, my uncle and aunt still lived with her. The house was divided down the middle, and he raised his children in one half of the house while my grandmother and aunt lived in the other half. The family business (an autoshop downstairs) is now run by my uncles' children, who still live in that house with their parents and my aunt. There's no push to get the kids out of the house....and there aren't a lot of elderly parents dying alone in nursing homes either. I think AM stated it well. "Being a parent is being a parent for life." That, I do agree, is the thing called love.

Of course, I'm going to raise my children to be self-sufficient and hopefully find gainful employment and raise families one day. But, I will never turn them out of my home and will always welcome them back in.

Should adult children live with their parents beyond the years they are in school or college?
What is a fair age or stage for a grown child to be considered 'on his/her own' and no longer eligible to live in the family home? What factors should be taken into consideration?


Aging does not infer developing maturity. Most mature individuals want to become independent, and self sustaining. Its a natural progression. When I see an adult child living in a parental home, I do suspect immaturity or some other form of developmental delay.

As far as what age seems appropriate to leave a parental home, I would say following the completion of formal education would be appropriate.

Its a sad state of affairs when a couple has a child and that child never wants to leave. As a parent I would have to believe I failed to properly raise that individual.

Its also a sad state of affairs when the parents will not force the issue and push the individual out. They are not doing that individual any favors. If anything it is fostering delayed development indefinitely.

I do agree that different cultures have different views. I believe other cultures use adult children as another source of labor or income to sustain and not drain the family homestead. That without the adult children, the homestead would fail. Not the case in most US homes.

May I offer my own personal experience? I was a very late bloomer in many ways. I never held a job, or even learned how to drive an automobile, until I was in my late twenties. I remained with my parents for a year or more after I got out of college and started working, and paid off my student loans.

I was never in a big hurry to grow up. The people who want to get behind the wheel of a car the day they turn fifteen, or who want to have their own apartment the day they turn sixteen, baffle me. I suppose it's a matter of personality. Being an adult is a very scary thing, and I needed more time than usual to face that challenge.

In answer to the questions for debate, I think it is possible for someone to continue to live with her parents for a certain amount of time after finishing her education, depending on the situation. Some factors to take into consideration might be economic and psychological. (Not all of us are eager to face the Big Scary World. No doubt I could have benefited from some psychological counseling, but I managed to slowly make my way on my own.)

There are no hard and fast rules for this sort of thing.

i would say yes adults should stay with their parents as still at the age of 18. It is better for both parents and children as they will be able to help each other in need and be able to understand the meaning of a complete family....

I think this is a case by case issue. If your child has graduated from college and moves back home while looking for a job and getting on their feet, I think that is fine. If they move in and have no plans of moving out, getting a job and being independent, then i would worry and give them their options. No matter how old they are they are still your kids. You shouldn't baby them, but as i said. Take this issue on a case by case situation.