was it harder to go from 1 to 2, or 2 to 3 kids?

aggieoj · November 2011

This was a big spark of convo at a meeting last night.

Dh and I pray for #2, but will that rock our world more than going from 2 to 3?

angelaggie · November 2011

My mother always said going from 1 to 2 was harder. She said by the third she had it down, and by that time my brother and I were old enough to help or entertain ourselves. There is an age gap between us. I was 7, bro was 5, and then my sister was a new born.

mcurban · November 2011

Everyone I've spoken to w/ all young kids (i.e., 1-3 year difference between each child) say that 1 child to 2 was harder than 2 to 3. Moms that I have spoken w/ who have one older child (i.e., school age+ at the time of middle sibling's birth) and two younger children (1-3 year gap) say that going from 2-3 is harder.

ali-1411 · November 2011

I think this is going to be all about age gaps. Going from 1 to 2 was relatively easy for us but we also have a 6 year age gap. If we had gone for three, there would have only been a two year age gap between 2 and 3. I can't even imagine how that would have wrecked our world.

molliedb · November 2011

2 to 3. Hardest of all hands down for us. Sunk my battleship for about 7months

m_and_m · November 2011

Adding ZeeBaby to ZeeToddler and DD was WAY more difficult than adding ZeeToddler to DD, and it's all practical stuff. DD was 22mos when ZeeT came into he mix (he was 12mos); DD was almost 3 and ZeeT was 25mos when ZeeB came into play (she was 6w when I started watching her PT, 3mos when she came to me FT).

Grocery shopping with 2? Easy- many places have twin carts. With 3? Huge PITA with this age spread. Library storytime? No longer happens with all three. Children's Museum? Only with a helper. We only go to parks where I can pull the car right up to where our blanket is so I can load them up one at a time when we leave, and the other two aren't out of earshot/site. Naptime is.... Difficult at times.

I do think a lot has to do with the age spread though.

jacks123 · November 2011

For us, going from 2 to 3 was harder. All of our kids are close in age and young, 4 months, 2, and 4. I think it is harder mostly because all of our kids are still young. If our first and second kids were a little older, I don't think it would be as difficult.

mrslaquinta · November 2011

mollie, m&m, and jacks - lalalalalalalalala. That is all.

carlinlp · November 2011

1-2 for us. 2-3 was way easier.

molliedb · November 2011

mrslaquinta:
mollie, m&m, and jacks - lalalalalalalalala. That is all.

don't worry its an age thing. oh wait our kids are exactly the same age spread... um... i mean....

girl just remember that day at my house when you spilled the beans and i tried to keep baby annie quiet so we could talk and it likely looked like i hadn't showered in days. see? i'm not like that at ALL anymore! its totally temporary

bluestreet · November 2011

2 to 3 was easier for me, but I think a lot has to do with circumstances. The older girls play together, the baby is easy and sleeps a lot, and I'm happier than I was after the birth of DD2.

sundot · November 2011

1-2 was 100% tougher than 2-3. Part of it was that #2 had colic. Rocked our world inside out. Also, dd at 17+ months was really hard to entertain while trying to nurse and put #2 down for nap. Also, dd gave up naps all together when #2 arrived.

#3 was a dream baby sleeping through the night early on. #1 and #2 enjoyed entertaining each other when I needed to nurse #3 or put him down for a nap. Also, #2 held on to his naps until 2.5 years old. Much, much easier!!

I think it depends on the age difference and on the personalities of the older kids...

Want a personalized experience?

was it harder to go from 1 to 2, or 2 to 3 kids?

Re: was it harder to go from 1 to 2, or 2 to 3 kids?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards