2 under 2 vs. 2 under 3

matc

I was thinking I wanted 2 under 2 but see all these posts on how difficult it can be for everyone. I was thinking along the lines of having a few years of no sleep by having my LO close together. My siblings are close in age and we loved it growning up. I imagine everytime you have newborn it's a challenge. What are some things that make it more difficult than having 2 children under 3?

lhuttlinger

I have early childhood education experience, but no 2 under 2 experience. 2 years old is when most children are starting to communicate. By three, your child can communicate wants and needs very well. I would imagine that 2 under two would be more difficult because your two year old can't really communicate with you yet.?

mamamoos

my friend insists that the age difference between her first two (a little over a year) is faaaaaar easier than the age difference between her second and third (2 1/2 years). 

i guess with the first 2 it was easier to keep them occupied with the same things.  however, bc of the gap bw her middle child and the youngest, she is constnatly juggling different things bc what works to amuse one doesn't work for the other.

i have no idea if any of that made sense.  i hate mondays.

EuroChick

Not that I have any experience but:

- Greater chance the # 1 is STTNing regularly

- # 1 could be potty trained

- # 1 can talk and understand what you say so you can better prepare them for the baby

- # 1 will be good a walking so you won't need to carry them as much.

These are just my findings...

violets_are_blue

Plus #1 will probably be going to pre-school, so it will give you a chance to have more one-on-one time with the new baby.

MrsJuneHawk

I don't have any experience with 2 under 2 or any 2 for that matter but I'll give my 2 cents about age differences.  There is a 7 year difference between my brother and me.  We have absolutely nothing in common.  Growing up, we did not play with each other or benefited from each other in any way.  I think so many years between children is not a good idea.  There's an 11 year difference between my brother and my sister (she's the youngest) and obviously, they don't have anything in common either. 

I don't want more children but if I did, I'd try to have them no more than 3 years apart.  Of course, I have medical issues that sort of dictates how close I can have kids so realistically, 2 years might be the shortest age difference.

Does that make sense?

DaisyAdair

I had 2 under 1 and will have 3 under 2. 

It's not the sleep.  It's the logistics of doing anything.  Right now, I have a 20mo old and a 9mo old.  The 20mo old still can't feed themselves without a mess.  She still can't get up and down the stairs.  She still doesn't understand the concept of "keep your clothes on, we're going out".  The ability for a child to do certain things for themselves really expands between 2 and 3.  Their comprehension of things expands.  That's the stuff that makes life easier.  Not sleep.

It takes 2hrs to pack up the diaper bag and lay out clothes the night before we have to be anywhere.  Then, it's another 2hrs in the morning to get myself washed and dressed, get them both wiped down and dressed, and get us all down to the car - this takes 1 trip at night to put the diaper bag in the car and 2 trips in the morning to put each one in the car because I don't have the physical strength to carry them both at the same time.

The other day, my little one had a bad cough, so I called the pedi and they asked if I could be there in an hour - I can't be ANYWHERE in an hour!  I can't be anywhere in 2hrs!  And, if it's an unexpected trip out, it's a good 3-4hrs.

There is a diaper being changed every 2-3hrs.  Someone is being fed every 3hrs - everyone except me, that is.  

They don't really play together.....the little one is crawling all around and the older one is pulling out the dish receiver.  I have to corral them just to go pee because the older one feeds the little one fuzz, paper, etc. (again....if I had a bigger spacing, an older child would understand you don't feed your little sister paper!) - this involves screaming by everyone because heaven forbid you put them in the pack n play!

I don't care about sleep.  I never slept well.  But, the logistics of bath time, feeding time, changing all those diapers because nobody is anywhere near being potty trained, going out is hell on Earth.

I will say though.....being pregnant with an infant is a LOT easier than being pregnant with a toddler!  So, there is definitely THAT benefit to it!  

The newborn is the easy part.  Adding in a toddler.....that's where it gets hard.  

My friend had 2 under 3 (her DS just turned 3 and her DD is 8mo).  What a difference!  She lives on the 3rd floor and her DS can go up and down the stairs, so her trip to the car is 1 trip.  Thankfully, I have a garage....if I didn't, I'd be trapped in this house.  Her DS is helpful.....he can go get a diaper or the wipes.  My DD JUST started with that stage and it's still hit or miss.  We met at the mall and her DS fed himself, while the baby slept in the stroller and she ate in peace.  I was feeding my oldest and starving. 

It was just a whole other world.  

That's not to say there won't be good parts later on....it won't always be this hard.  Ah, but then I'll have 3 teenagers!  Yikes!

 

 

 

mamamoos

see, i would think 2 under 3 would be easier too...perhaps my friend is on crack.

Bunamama

I had my 2nd baby when our first son was 3 years 3 weeks old. He went through the normal adjustment phase of having a new person in in the house but it hasn't been horrible. My oldest was potty trained 5 1/2 months before the baby came and he had a fairly good understanding of the change that was coming to our family. I know my kid and if I had my 2nd baby a year earlier, it would have been much more difficult for all of us.

redstars93

I am saving this so I can read Daisy's response every time I get a "I want another baby now!" twinge. Daisy: cheers to you!!

I like the notion of 2 under 2, but the reality scares the hell out of me.