Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world.
Anything more than four years is too much, unless there are extenuating circumstances (trouble TTC, adoption, etc.) I think kids should be within an age difference that they'll mostly be in the same school range (elementary, middle, high) at the same time. Whether it's freshman/senior or just a year apart, I think it lends itself better to a friendship - or at least familiarity. Once you get more than half a decade between them, they're pretty much strangers living in the same house. No shared (non-family) activities, friends, teachers, etc. Not to mention, you get too many years between them, the older child ends up being the designated babysitter, which is unfair too. Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
Contemplating the snow.
Mes Petit Choux
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then. ~ Alice
Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world.
Anything more than four years is too much, unless there are extenuating circumstances (trouble TTC, adoption, etc.) I think kids should be within an age difference that they'll mostly be in the same school range (elementary, middle, high) at the same time. Whether it's freshman/senior or just a year apart, I think it lends itself better to a friendship - or at least familiarity. Once you get more than half a decade between them, they're pretty much strangers living in the same house. No shared (non-family) activities, friends, teachers, etc. Not to mention, you get too many years between them, the older child ends up being the designated babysitter, which is unfair too. Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
Having a sister that is 7 years younger I can tell you this is total bullshite. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion that having a sibling more than 4 years older or younger is simply like living with a ghost?
Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world.
Anything more than four years is too much, unless there are extenuating circumstances (trouble TTC, adoption, etc.) I think kids should be within an age difference that they'll mostly be in the same school range (elementary, middle, high) at the same time. Whether it's freshman/senior or just a year apart, I think it lends itself better to a friendship - or at least familiarity. Once you get more than half a decade between them, they're pretty much strangers living in the same house. No shared (non-family) activities, friends, teachers, etc. Not to mention, you get too many years between them, the older child ends up being the designated babysitter, which is unfair too. Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
Having a sister that is 7 years younger I can tell you this is total bullshite. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion that having a sibling more than 4 years older or younger is simply like living with a ghost?
Sorry, but ITA. I have a sister that's 7 years younger and we are waaaaaaaaaaay closer than I am with my other sister, who is 13 months younger than me. We have always been close and I adored being the 'babysitter'. In fact, I used to drive home from college on weekends that my parents were away on business trips so that we could hang out. I taught her so many things and personally take credit for her being valedictorian, since I used to play school with her when she was two. LOL. We still Skype daily.
Anywho, to answer Leah's question, I think it's all relative. From a medical standpoint, it's best to wait 18 months in between pregnancies. That's what I read anyway. Everything else is personal preference. DH wants to TTC when Delilah is 9 months (he wanted them close in age). I told him I wanted to wait till she was 18 months (I want to get skinny again and have time with just one). We'll probably compromise at sometime after 12 months.
To jump in, my sister and I are 8 yrs apart, and much closer than my brother and I, who are 18 mos. apart. I did babysit her a lot, but it really only forged our lifelong friendship.
That being said, I don't want to be 41 when I have our 3rd baby. So for me, the ideal is one in 2010, one in 2012, and one in 2016.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world.
Anything more than four years is too much, unless there are extenuating circumstances (trouble TTC, adoption, etc.) I think kids should be within an age difference that they'll mostly be in the same school range (elementary, middle, high) at the same time. Whether it's freshman/senior or just a year apart, I think it lends itself better to a friendship - or at least familiarity. Once you get more than half a decade between them, they're pretty much strangers living in the same house. No shared (non-family) activities, friends, teachers, etc. Not to mention, you get too many years between them, the older child ends up being the designated babysitter, which is unfair too. Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
Both of your statements are utterly ridiculous. You sound absurd.
I'm very close to my brother who is 7 years younger than I am. We were never strangers living in the same house. And as the oldest, I loved loved loved babysitting. I got a little money and was able to feel independent and learn responsibility. And I know of many parents of multiples who would laugh at your first statement. Often times, children close in age grow up learning patience and amazing cooperative skills. And you underestimate the capacity of some women to adequately juggle the needs of 2 small children.
I am just in shock that you sound like such an authority on the matter when its obvious you haven't a clue.
Everyone is going to have a different answer, and it probably has something to do with their relationships/age difference between themselves and their own siblings. I am three years older than my sister and it's always been a good age gap for us. We have a great relationship.
For DH and I, we'd like to pay off all his student loans and maybe buy a house before we have another child. We're young, and plan to have a big(ger) family so the gaps between #2 and #3 may be shorter than the gap between Sophie and #2. We'll play it by ear, but all we know is that we're not ready to have another one anytime in the immediate future.
I think your own experiences factor so heavily in this decision. For me, my bio brother and I are 16 months apart, I knew I didn't want my kids this close because I've heard my mom talk about how hard it was. But, when my dad remarried and I gained a step brother and step sister, we were literally like stairs - we graduated high school in 94, 96, 97, and 98. My step brother is actually two months older than I am, but I graduated a year ahead of him. It was *insane* growing up like that, but it was so much fun then and it's the most amazing thing now. It was harder than heck, but worth it all.
Now my husband and his brothers are totally different. Josh is the oldest, his middle brother is four years younger and his youngest brother is ten years younger. He's not very close to his youngest brother, but that has more to do with personality differences than an age difference. He liked being an only child at first and thought four years was a good spacing, but thinks ten years is way too far apart.
We don't have a lot of time (want to be done before 40 for sure, preferably before 35) so that factored in to our decision. We also knew we didn't want two under two. So we didn't start trying for #2 until Mar was fifteen months old. We thought (and perhaps hoped) it wouldn't happen until she would be closer to three when delivery came around, but as it turns out, we got lucky the first time and we're escaping 2u2 by nine days
I know the first three years will be hard, but I think the first three years are always hard, one child or thirteen children.
It really depends on you and your family. I love that my girls are 22 months apart. We had them this close together for several reasons, not the least of which was that my sister and I are 17 months apart and are best friends. Julia will never really remember life without Emma, and they already play together a lot. I kind of like getting the baby stage done together then we'll move past that, although we're still leaning towards a 3rd child, but that would be again 2-3 years apart so still close. They will always be close to the same stage in terms of what types of family vacations we'll take (i.e. the right age for the "magic" of Disney or to have fun at Williamsburg, which is my favorite vacation spot). But, a larger age gap also has a lot of advantages. It would be nice to not have 2 in diapers and an older child is more independent and might be able/willing to help more with the baby.
All I can do is give my opinion. My boys are three years and two months apart and it couldn't be more perfect. Jack loves doting and helping with his brother. He's also much more independent at three than at two and can get himself a snack, get into his carseat by himself, has been pt'd for some time, etc. All of these things make having two so much easier than if Jack were younger.
I don't think this question has an objective answer.
It depends on you and how you feel.
For me I don't think I could handle two wee ones at the same time. So I'm thinking at least four years apart.
Lots of other parents want to get the baby stage over with and pop them out, one right after the other.
It just depends on what you want.
This is me! Hehe. If I had only wanted two or three then I would space them out more... but I want four or five and I'd like my last pregnancy to occur before (or when) I'm 30 so that I'm finished by then and still young enough to keep up with them all, lol.
My best friend, my husband, my everything Matthew Kevin 7/31/83-7/20/11
Met 1/8/00
Engaged 4/21/06
Married 9/29/07
Two beautiful legacies: Noah Matthew (2 yrs) and Chloe Marcella (8 mos) Day Three
Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world.
Anything more than four years is too much, unless there are extenuating circumstances (trouble TTC, adoption, etc.) I think kids should be within an age difference that they'll mostly be in the same school range (elementary, middle, high) at the same time. Whether it's freshman/senior or just a year apart, I think it lends itself better to a friendship - or at least familiarity. Once you get more than half a decade between them, they're pretty much strangers living in the same house. No shared (non-family) activities, friends, teachers, etc. Not to mention, you get too many years between them, the older child ends up being the designated babysitter, which is unfair too. Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
You have a lot of strong opinions on the topic for someone who is stopping at one.
There is no "ideal" spacing. Just like every other parenting decision, it is about what is the right decision for your family. Period. What is ideal for my family is not going to be ideal for somebody else. Work, age, money, time, house and other factors are all important.
You could name just about every spacing and I bet I could come up with an example of siblings that are close and siblings that aren't close. There is no ideal, because sibling relationships are about personalities and not age.
I'm an only child, so I've come to this based on observation of others (sibling relationships kind of fascinate and intimidate me). My husband has a brother and a sister. They are close with each other, but not with him. They all get along, but he doesn't have a lot in common with them. The spacing between the 3 of them is very similar.
Anyway, *our* ideal spacing was what we got - 2 years, 3 months. DD is independent and communicative enough that she isn't as dependent on us anymore, but she is young enough that she's probably already forgotten what life was like without her brother. And DH wanted to have #2 before he turned 40. (We made it by 5 months. :-) It certainly has its challenging moments, but I think it has been easier than kids I know who are 18 months apart...and since I wanted to try for a VBAC, the kids couldn't be too close together either. Given DD's personality, I don't think it would have been easier when she's older. She's a strong willed kid and high needs kid, that adding to our family would be a challenge no matter what her age.
Heather Margaret --- Feb '07 and Todd Eldon --- April '09
Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
Whatever. We plan on having our kids close, but still are planning to rely on the free forced labor. I can't wait for the day that M can go out and feed, mow the lawn and do dishes
That said, I don't think there is an ideal, except for you, DH and your current LOs.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
My oldest two are 3 years apart and I loved that age gap. My oldest was very independent at 3, I only had one in diapers, and they're very close. My second two were 2.5 years apart which was a lot harder, imo. I had two in diapers and two who wanted to be carried everywhere, but they're still very close.
ETA: I have no experience with the 4 year age gap but I've thought it would be really nice to only have one in college at a time.
We started trying when DS turned 2. I'm in an odd way grateful that we didn't have DD til he was 4- the terrible threes were awful in our household, and would have been compounded, I think, by a new babe. It really is nice how independent he is now- he can get snacks and drinks on his own, entertain himself, and is a hugh help around the house. So I'm now a proponent of spacing them out quite a bit!
Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world.
Anything more than four years is too much, unless there are extenuating circumstances (trouble TTC, adoption, etc.) I think kids should be within an age difference that they'll mostly be in the same school range (elementary, middle, high) at the same time. Whether it's freshman/senior or just a year apart, I think it lends itself better to a friendship - or at least familiarity. Once you get more than half a decade between them, they're pretty much strangers living in the same house. No shared (non-family) activities, friends, teachers, etc. Not to mention, you get too many years between them, the older child ends up being the designated babysitter, which is unfair too. Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
Having a sister that is 7 years younger I can tell you this is total bullshite. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion that having a sibling more than 4 years older or younger is simply like living with a ghost?
I tend to agree on the minimum spacing, but on the max spacing, not so much. We'd ideally love kids 3-4 years apart but due to TTTC (which I know you mentioned) may not happen (or may not have a second at all). But as far as the bolded, my oldest brother is 7 years older, next oldest is 4 years older than me. Guess what, I was WAY closer to the older growing up, and we shared plenty, still had same teachers (more years apart), his friends loved having me around, he took me places, taught me sports, et cetera. And not just as a babysitter.
For us, 3-3.5 years. Maybe 4. I want my oldest to be a little more independent when I have another baby. And since mine isn't close to STTN at this point and still nursing, I have no desire to get pregnant or have a newborn anytime soon. I'm hoping to have a little independence from babies for a few months before dedicating my body to them again
My brother is 8 years older than me and my sister is 3.5 years older than me. We are all very close. My sister did say she hated me when we were little, but I don't really remember that. I mostly have good memories and my sister is my best friend now. A lot of people have "copied" my parents on sibling spacing because the 3 of us got along so well, so I'm going the same thing. ha. I think a lot of it has to do with family dynamics and personality though.
My oldest two are 14 months apart. My third is 3 years younger than child #2. The first few months with number #2 were tough. That would not have changed no matter the spacing because #2 was a horrid sleeper. My two oldest are the best of friends. they play for hours together. I do not feel like any of my children have been lacking for attention or love. In fact I feel like the closer spacing was more ideal because their needs were so much the same. As all the pp stated it depends on your family, your marriage, your finances, etc. My family is ideal for me.
We plan on starting TTC around the time Keevia is two. Mainly, we're living with my parents right now, I cannot IMAGINE being pregnant again, we want to enjoy her babyhood, and I want to nurse until she's 2+.
By the time she's 2, we should be in our own home, my DH should be full time, and we should have adequate insurance to cover it. Plus, she'd be around 3 when the new babe came, and having seen my nephew with his new brother, I think, In MHO that it would be the best age for us.
And yes, I can do math, I'm just giving a few months for TTC. I got preggo the first cycle both times, but, I hold no illusions that this may work for the next one!
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
"Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world."
I had to address this since my oldest are 14 months apart. My daughter never competed for affection or attention. It is not a game or a race, it is a family and love grows not divides.
ETA: A newborn does not require most of your attention. You might think that only having one, but they really require very little. Food, sleep, and snuggles. You can do all those things and give your older child everything they need.
I am so amused by the poster who not only has an opinion on minimum but also a maximum... so there is a two year window that is the only correct time to provide your child with a sibling. That's it! Some of you ladies better get busy tonight.
I want a larger space between kids because I specifically DON'T want them in the same school at the same time. It's too expensive to have 2 in daycare (or 2 in college). Noooo thank you.
After 3 years of TTC and 2 losses, we're going to take whatever God gives us after this one. No more birth control for me. We may get lucky and it will happen sooner... but we may have similar complications this time around.
As for spacing, I have a brother who is 10 months younger than me, and a brother who is 5 years younger than me. My "little" brother has become my best friend, and I have very little contact with my Irish twin. I don't think it has anything to do with spacing.
I absolutely *was* forced labor as a kid and I'm thankful for it! It made me a more responsible person, and created a very special relationship between us that has held up for 25 years.
Wow, I didn't think my response would garner so much backlash. It was all personal opinion, based on families I've known in my life. I've moved around a lot and known a lot of people, and from what I've seen, there is a pretty small window for what I would consider *ideal* spacing. Not saying less or more is wrong or bad, just what I've seen. Obviously, whatever works for a family is what's right for that family.
And just because I haven't experienced something, or don't plan to, doesn't mean I can't have a strong opinion on the matter. I've never been raped, but I feel pretty strongly that it's a bad thing. I've never won a million dollars in the lottery, but I bet it's pretty awesome. Planning to only have one child (and being an only child myself) doesn't make my opinion on the question asked any less valid.
Contemplating the snow.
Mes Petit Choux
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then. ~ Alice
we thought like 3 years or so and we want 4 kids... then i realized that i would be pregnant with the last one after i was 40 and i don't think i have the energy... so either we are stopping after 2 or 3 OR they will be closer in age!!!
I agree with PPs that spacing is different for every family.
My son has been pretty high needs so I can't even imagine doing my life as it is now and then having a toddler as well to look after. We always wanted two kids but it's been so hard that we're undecided whether we'll be one and done or have another when Matthew is 3 or 4.
And just because I haven't experienced something, or don't plan to, doesn't mean I can't have a strong opinion on the matter. I've never been raped, but I feel pretty strongly that it's a bad thing.
this is truly a very bad example. In general, comparing anything to rape is just not going to go over well.
And just because I haven't experienced something, or don't plan to, doesn't mean I can't have a strong opinion on the matter. I've never been raped, but I feel pretty strongly that it's a bad thing.
this is truly a very bad example. In general, comparing anything to rape is just not going to go over well.
Umm, yeah, that's got to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on the Bump.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
I have a sister 3 years older than me, a brother 8 years younger, & a half sister that's 16 years younger and a half brother is 17 years younger.
My brother & older sister are my closest siblings. My older sis is my BFF. My younger brother & I are really tight too. I've always been someone he looks up to but respects as well - like an adult that's cooler than you're parents, kwim?
My 2 youngest siblings I'm not as close to, but we live in different states & I didn't live @ home with them at all.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Wow, I didn't think my response would garner so much backlash. It was all personal opinion, based on families I've known in my life. I've moved around a lot and known a lot of people, and from what I've seen, there is a pretty small window for what I would consider *ideal* spacing. Not saying less or more is wrong or bad, just what I've seen. Obviously, whatever works for a family is what's right for that family.
And just because I haven't experienced something, or don't plan to, doesn't mean I can't have a strong opinion on the matter. I've never been raped, but I feel pretty strongly that it's a bad thing. I've never won a million dollars in the lottery, but I bet it's pretty awesome. Planning to only have one child (and being an only child myself) doesn't make my opinion on the question asked any less valid.
Actually, yes it does. If someone asks a question about multiples I wouldn't even dare to answer even though there are 5 sets of multiples in my family. Despite having an opinion based upon what I've observed I know my opinion is not informed by first-hand expeirence and therefore not valid compared to those who do have first-hand experience.
Furthermore you CLEARLY stated that having kids too close or far apart is bad. I don't know how else you could characterize it. Saying growing up with a "stranger" for a sibling is neutral? You're entitled to your opinions, but please know they're uninformed.
Wow, I didn't think my response would garner so much backlash. It was all personal opinion, based on families I've known in my life. I've moved around a lot and known a lot of people, and from what I've seen, there is a pretty small window for what I would consider *ideal* spacing. Not saying less or more is wrong or bad, just what I've seen. Obviously, whatever works for a family is what's right for that family.
And just because I haven't experienced something, or don't plan to, doesn't mean I can't have a strong opinion on the matter. I've never been raped, but I feel pretty strongly that it's a bad thing. I've never won a million dollars in the lottery, but I bet it's pretty awesome. Planning to only have one child (and being an only child myself) doesn't make my opinion on the question asked any less valid.
Actually, yes it does. If someone asks a question about multiples I wouldn't even dare to answer even though there are 5 sets of multiples in my family. Despite having an opinion based upon what I've observed I know my opinion is not informed by first-hand expeirence and therefore not valid compared to those who do have first-hand experience.
Furthermore you CLEARLY stated that having kids too close or far apart is bad. I don't know how else you could characterize it. Saying growing up with a "stranger" for a sibling is neutral? You're entitled to your opinions, but please know they're uninformed.
And big fat FAIL on the rape comparison.
Beautifully said. And the rape comparison. Truly. Just a gem of a comparison.
I agree that this is totally a subjective decision. We chose to space our children closer (we were shooting for between 2 and 3 years) because we thought that was a good age gap health wise (for me) and socially (for the LOs) and it would work out well for us finishing school/me staying out of the work force (I'm a SAHM until they are in school).
Something I don't think anyone else mentioned is your child(ren)'s personality. If my DD was higher needs, we probably would have chosen to wait longer between the two, but she is very low key, loving, and empathetic, so we felt she would do well with another LO at a younger age. In the end, you just need to do what is right for you and your family.
Re: ideal spacing of siblings?
I don't think this question has an objective answer.
It depends on you and how you feel.
For me I don't think I could handle two wee ones at the same time. So I'm thinking at least four years apart.
Lots of other parents want to get the baby stage over with and pop them out, one right after the other.
It just depends on what you want.
Infinity. I'm a big believer in "one and done."
Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world.
Anything more than four years is too much, unless there are extenuating circumstances (trouble TTC, adoption, etc.) I think kids should be within an age difference that they'll mostly be in the same school range (elementary, middle, high) at the same time. Whether it's freshman/senior or just a year apart, I think it lends itself better to a friendship - or at least familiarity. Once you get more than half a decade between them, they're pretty much strangers living in the same house. No shared (non-family) activities, friends, teachers, etc. Not to mention, you get too many years between them, the older child ends up being the designated babysitter, which is unfair too. Being older should not automatically mean being free forced labor.
Mes Petit Choux
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then. ~ Alice
Sorry, but ITA. I have a sister that's 7 years younger and we are waaaaaaaaaaay closer than I am with my other sister, who is 13 months younger than me. We have always been close and I adored being the 'babysitter'. In fact, I used to drive home from college on weekends that my parents were away on business trips so that we could hang out. I taught her so many things and personally take credit for her being valedictorian, since I used to play school with her when she was two. LOL. We still Skype daily.
Anywho, to answer Leah's question, I think it's all relative. From a medical standpoint, it's best to wait 18 months in between pregnancies. That's what I read anyway. Everything else is personal preference. DH wants to TTC when Delilah is 9 months (he wanted them close in age). I told him I wanted to wait till she was 18 months (I want to get skinny again and have time with just one). We'll probably compromise at sometime after 12 months.
To jump in, my sister and I are 8 yrs apart, and much closer than my brother and I, who are 18 mos. apart. I did babysit her a lot, but it really only forged our lifelong friendship.
That being said, I don't want to be 41 when I have our 3rd baby.
So for me, the ideal is one in 2010, one in 2012, and one in 2016.
Both of your statements are utterly ridiculous. You sound absurd.
I'm very close to my brother who is 7 years younger than I am. We were never strangers living in the same house. And as the oldest, I loved loved loved babysitting. I got a little money and was able to feel independent and learn responsibility. And I know of many parents of multiples who would laugh at your first statement. Often times, children close in age grow up learning patience and amazing cooperative skills. And you underestimate the capacity of some women to adequately juggle the needs of 2 small children.
I am just in shock that you sound like such an authority on the matter when its obvious you haven't a clue.
Everyone is going to have a different answer, and it probably has something to do with their relationships/age difference between themselves and their own siblings. I am three years older than my sister and it's always been a good age gap for us. We have a great relationship.
For DH and I, we'd like to pay off all his student loans and maybe buy a house before we have another child. We're young, and plan to have a big(ger) family so the gaps between #2 and #3 may be shorter than the gap between Sophie and #2. We'll play it by ear, but all we know is that we're not ready to have another one anytime in the immediate future.
I think your own experiences factor so heavily in this decision. For me, my bio brother and I are 16 months apart, I knew I didn't want my kids this close because I've heard my mom talk about how hard it was. But, when my dad remarried and I gained a step brother and step sister, we were literally like stairs - we graduated high school in 94, 96, 97, and 98. My step brother is actually two months older than I am, but I graduated a year ahead of him. It was *insane* growing up like that, but it was so much fun then and it's the most amazing thing now. It was harder than heck, but worth it all.
Now my husband and his brothers are totally different. Josh is the oldest, his middle brother is four years younger and his youngest brother is ten years younger. He's not very close to his youngest brother, but that has more to do with personality differences than an age difference. He liked being an only child at first and thought four years was a good spacing, but thinks ten years is way too far apart.
We don't have a lot of time (want to be done before 40 for sure, preferably before 35) so that factored in to our decision. We also knew we didn't want two under two. So we didn't start trying for #2 until Mar was fifteen months old. We thought (and perhaps hoped) it wouldn't happen until she would be closer to three when delivery came around, but as it turns out, we got lucky the first time and we're escaping 2u2 by nine days
I know the first three years will be hard, but I think the first three years are always hard, one child or thirteen children.
j+k+m+e | running with needles
This is me! Hehe. If I had only wanted two or three then I would space them out more... but I want four or five and I'd like my last pregnancy to occur before (or when) I'm 30 so that I'm finished by then and still young enough to keep up with them all, lol.
Matthew Kevin
7/31/83-7/20/11
Met 1/8/00
Engaged 4/21/06
Married 9/29/07
Two beautiful legacies: Noah Matthew (2 yrs) and Chloe Marcella (8 mos)
Day Three
You have a lot of strong opinions on the topic for someone who is stopping at one.
There is no "ideal" spacing. Just like every other parenting decision, it is about what is the right decision for your family. Period. What is ideal for my family is not going to be ideal for somebody else. Work, age, money, time, house and other factors are all important.
You could name just about every spacing and I bet I could come up with an example of siblings that are close and siblings that aren't close. There is no ideal, because sibling relationships are about personalities and not age.
I'm an only child, so I've come to this based on observation of others (sibling relationships kind of fascinate and intimidate me). My husband has a brother and a sister. They are close with each other, but not with him. They all get along, but he doesn't have a lot in common with them. The spacing between the 3 of them is very similar.
Anyway, *our* ideal spacing was what we got - 2 years, 3 months. DD is independent and communicative enough that she isn't as dependent on us anymore, but she is young enough that she's probably already forgotten what life was like without her brother. And DH wanted to have #2 before he turned 40. (We made it by 5 months. :-) It certainly has its challenging moments, but I think it has been easier than kids I know who are 18 months apart...and since I wanted to try for a VBAC, the kids couldn't be too close together either. Given DD's personality, I don't think it would have been easier when she's older. She's a strong willed kid and high needs kid, that adding to our family would be a challenge no matter what her age.
Whatever. We plan on having our kids close, but still are planning to rely on the free forced labor. I can't wait for the day that M can go out and feed, mow the lawn and do dishes
That said, I don't think there is an ideal, except for you, DH and your current LOs.
My oldest two are 3 years apart and I loved that age gap. My oldest was very independent at 3, I only had one in diapers, and they're very close. My second two were 2.5 years apart which was a lot harder, imo. I had two in diapers and two who wanted to be carried everywhere, but they're still very close.
ETA: I have no experience with the 4 year age gap but I've thought it would be really nice to only have one in college at a time.
I tend to agree on the minimum spacing, but on the max spacing, not so much. We'd ideally love kids 3-4 years apart but due to TTTC (which I know you mentioned) may not happen (or may not have a second at all). But as far as the bolded, my oldest brother is 7 years older, next oldest is 4 years older than me. Guess what, I was WAY closer to the older growing up, and we shared plenty, still had same teachers (more years apart), his friends loved having me around, he took me places, taught me sports, et cetera. And not just as a babysitter.
For us, 3-3.5 years. Maybe 4. I want my oldest to be a little more independent when I have another baby. And since mine isn't close to STTN at this point and still nursing, I have no desire to get pregnant or have a newborn anytime soon. I'm hoping to have a little independence from babies for a few months before dedicating my body to them again
My brother is 8 years older than me and my sister is 3.5 years older than me. We are all very close. My sister did say she hated me when we were little, but I don't really remember that. I mostly have good memories and my sister is my best friend now. A lot of people have "copied" my parents on sibling spacing because the 3 of us got along so well, so I'm going the same thing. ha. I think a lot of it has to do with family dynamics and personality though.
We plan on starting TTC around the time Keevia is two. Mainly, we're living with my parents right now, I cannot IMAGINE being pregnant again, we want to enjoy her babyhood, and I want to nurse until she's 2+.
By the time she's 2, we should be in our own home, my DH should be full time, and we should have adequate insurance to cover it. Plus, she'd be around 3 when the new babe came, and having seen my nephew with his new brother, I think, In MHO that it would be the best age for us.
And yes, I can do math, I'm just giving a few months for TTC. I got preggo the first cycle both times, but, I hold no illusions that this may work for the next one!
"Anything less than two years between births is unfair to the older child, IMO. Since parents really have no choice but to give a newborn most of their attention, I think the older child deserves their full first year without any competition for attention/affection from a sibling, whether in the womb or in the world."
I had to address this since my oldest are 14 months apart. My daughter never competed for affection or attention. It is not a game or a race, it is a family and love grows not divides.
ETA: A newborn does not require most of your attention. You might think that only having one, but they really require very little. Food, sleep, and snuggles. You can do all those things and give your older child everything they need.
My Blog
I am so amused by the poster who not only has an opinion on minimum but also a maximum... so there is a two year window that is the only correct time to provide your child with a sibling. That's it! Some of you ladies better get busy tonight.
I want a larger space between kids because I specifically DON'T want them in the same school at the same time. It's too expensive to have 2 in daycare (or 2 in college). Noooo thank you.
Obviously everyone is going to have their own opinion on this one.
For us, ideal spacing will be 3-4 years apart. I want to enjoy the baby and the toddler stage with each. We only plan on having 2 kids.
After 3 years of TTC and 2 losses, we're going to take whatever God gives us after this one. No more birth control for me. We may get lucky and it will happen sooner... but we may have similar complications this time around.
As for spacing, I have a brother who is 10 months younger than me, and a brother who is 5 years younger than me. My "little" brother has become my best friend, and I have very little contact with my Irish twin. I don't think it has anything to do with spacing.
I absolutely *was* forced labor as a kid and I'm thankful for it! It made me a more responsible person, and created a very special relationship between us that has held up for 25 years.
Wow, I didn't think my response would garner so much backlash. It was all personal opinion, based on families I've known in my life. I've moved around a lot and known a lot of people, and from what I've seen, there is a pretty small window for what I would consider *ideal* spacing. Not saying less or more is wrong or bad, just what I've seen. Obviously, whatever works for a family is what's right for that family.
And just because I haven't experienced something, or don't plan to, doesn't mean I can't have a strong opinion on the matter. I've never been raped, but I feel pretty strongly that it's a bad thing. I've never won a million dollars in the lottery, but I bet it's pretty awesome. Planning to only have one child (and being an only child myself) doesn't make my opinion on the question asked any less valid.
Mes Petit Choux
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then. ~ Alice
I agree with PPs that spacing is different for every family.
My son has been pretty high needs so I can't even imagine doing my life as it is now and then having a toddler as well to look after. We always wanted two kids but it's been so hard that we're undecided whether we'll be one and done or have another when Matthew is 3 or 4.
this is truly a very bad example. In general, comparing anything to rape is just not going to go over well.
Umm, yeah, that's got to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on the Bump.
I have a sister 3 years older than me, a brother 8 years younger, & a half sister that's 16 years younger and a half brother is 17 years younger.
My brother & older sister are my closest siblings. My older sis is my BFF. My younger brother & I are really tight too. I've always been someone he looks up to but respects as well - like an adult that's cooler than you're parents, kwim?
My 2 youngest siblings I'm not as close to, but we live in different states & I didn't live @ home with them at all.
Furthermore you CLEARLY stated that having kids too close or far apart is bad. I don't know how else you could characterize it. Saying growing up with a "stranger" for a sibling is neutral? You're entitled to your opinions, but please know they're uninformed.
And big fat FAIL on the rape comparison.
Beautifully said. And the rape comparison. Truly. Just a gem of a comparison.
I agree that this is totally a subjective decision. We chose to space our children closer (we were shooting for between 2 and 3 years) because we thought that was a good age gap health wise (for me) and socially (for the LOs) and it would work out well for us finishing school/me staying out of the work force (I'm a SAHM until they are in school).
Something I don't think anyone else mentioned is your child(ren)'s personality. If my DD was higher needs, we probably would have chosen to wait longer between the two, but she is very low key, loving, and empathetic, so we felt she would do well with another LO at a younger age. In the end, you just need to do what is right for you and your family.