What is the ideal spacing between kids?

[D'sMama]

Of course, this is highly personal to each individual family, but I'm wondering more about what you think is ideal in general (as much as that's possible).

And please don't just say "whatever god grants us is ideal" or "we leave it up to nature" or what have you. If that's how you feel, that's great, but I want NUMBERS, because I'm a planner! Of course, I'd still love to hear your experiences with that, especially if there's a big variation in spacing among your kids.

Some of the factors we're considering as we try to figure out when to TTC our second:
How they'll get along - will they be friends and play with each other?
Being overwhelmed - two in diapers, tandem nursing, two LOs nightwaking and bedsharing, etc.
Money - will we end up paying 2 (or 3 or 4) college tuitions at the same time? And of course everything that comes between birth and college.
Attention - older one's jealousy of the new baby, not being able to spend a lot of time alone with the new baby, etc.

Any other input would be awesome, since I only have one baby and clearly don't know what I'm getting myself into!

[Peony]

I always said at least 3 years, now I have #2 and #3 that are 2.5 years apart, and let me say again, at least 3 years! #1 and #2 are 3.5 years, really very close to 4 years apart, I loved that spacing. They are 6 and 2.5y and play very well together, most days I find them outside making up little games together. DD1 is old enough to be part babysitter AND playmate to DD2. She can inform me of things DD2 is getting into, feed her snacks, take her to the bathroom, but then they don't have a problem playing together. DD2 and DS are 2.5y apart, while I'm sure it will be fine in the long run, it is a lot more work having a baby and a toddler then a baby and pre-schooler. If I can talk DH into one more, which is proving to be difficult after the spacing of those two, he is scarred at the moment, then I will listen to my own advice and it will be at least 3 years!

[Tigerchild]

No one can answer those questions for you, though.

You cannot control or plan to have your children like each other. They will or they won't (and that may shift over time) and how many years between them doesn't really matter--it's not about you, it's about them.

You may be the type of parent who is overwhelmed with two. Period. Or you may not be. Again, there are pros and cons of any spacing. Super close together? Well, that DOES make for an EXTREMELY intense baby and toddler parenting time (I had 3 under 2 for six months, since my daughter was only 17 months old when my twins were born), IF your children are compatible tempermentally you may have to do less work as a preschool/school age parent (and older children have intense ages and stages all on their own, even though I am not at all a baby person to be really blunt with you I think older children are more fun but in some ways more intense as well). If you wait for long spacing, sometimes moving back into babyland can be extremely brutal, because most of us kind of forget what the first few months are really like as far as demands on your time and draining of your sleep/rest account.

As far as money goes--assuming tuition continues to rise, you may save money having kids go through the system sooner. And it may be that having multiple kids in college simulatenously might be something you can talk to financial aid people about (or not). If you plan on footing the bill for college though, you need to be starting to save at least in small increments very early. Maybe having a couple of children who are close in age will give you the kick in the butt you need to get started--or it might be so overwhelming that you shut down.

IMO if you choose the close together route it's not the new baby time period where you deal with the most jealousy/attention issues. And that can happen with kids who are more widely spaced (especially kids around the 4-5 years apart mark, if you plan on putting your kids in school--many school districts DO try to stagger orientations/activities so that people with kids in elementary school AND jr. high AND high school don't have to pick and choose--but not all of them do and sometimes that can't be done.).

You'll have to pick and choose your activities wisely, so that you don't overschedule--but that comes with the territory of two, not with spacing. I think with wider spacing sometimes people forget that Little Tagalong might want to do something other than what Firstborn wants to do--but sometimes they can't because there's been so much time invested in Firstborn's activity (especially competative sports) that it's hard to really allow the younger to explore. If everyone's starting their activities at about the same time, you learn early to juggle or direct wisely.

I know you said you didn't want people to say "but it's so individual"...but that's the thing. It IS so individual and you can't really separate that out.

You may very well be a planner. But children don't go according to plan. And whenever you add a new one to the mix you are multiplying your numbers and potential planning problems, you increase them *exponentially*.

So as a parent to three kids, who planned carefully for TWO closely spaced and got a bonus third because of a splitting zygote--I've gotta tell you, if you have a chance to be a planner, plan for how you're going to relieve stress, relax, and learn to roll with it--and that will serve you well no matter WHAT your spacing is. If you overly invest in perfecting the numbers, then that is an open invitation for the universe to have a little fun with you. I say that with all love, having been someone with a high need for advanced planning before round two.

[D'sMama]

Originally Posted by Tigerchild

I've gotta tell you, if you have a chance to be a planner, plan for how you're going to relieve stress, relax, and learn to roll with it--and that will serve you well no matter WHAT your spacing is. If you overly invest in perfecting the numbers, then that is an open invitation for the universe to have a little fun with you. I say that with all love, having been someone with a high need for advanced planning before round two.

Thanks for the blunt humor!

[Red Pajama]

I said three years, but that's not what I have. I have been grateful many times that I had twins first, in that my "firstborn" would never know what it was like to have parents all to himself, and perhaps the new baby jealousy would be less dramatic. I then added a third before my twins were three, and they did fairly well, without much jealousy. Sometimes I wish I'd had more time to enjoy them without the complications of another pregnancy. Little sister has been the easiest baby, though, so I can hardly complain.

I grew up with a three year spacing, and while my sister and I were not close and fought a lot growing up, once she left for college we became quite close. So it's nice as an adult relationship.

[Spark]

My crew is all about 2 years apart & I love that spacing & they seem to, too! It works for us! They all play together beautifully & really enjoy each others company.

My first was 2.25 years
My second was 21 months (too close for me when pregnant then newborn!)
My third was 2.5 years

I like what tigerchild said... it's all so true!

[newbymom05]

Three years rocks! My 4 y/o is old enough to understand sharing and being patient and gentle w/ the 1 y/o, and they're close enough that starting next year they'll really be able to play. We're stopping with 2 kids, but if were to have more, I'd do the 3 yr space again.

IME, my friends w/ 2 yr spacing under 5's are really stressed out. If it's a new baby, the oldest is still a baby so there's potty training, etc and w/ the olders my friends seem to always be dealing with fights and tantrums. They had a fantasy that such close spacing would make their children best friends, and maybe it'll turn out that way, but right now it sounds pretty hellacious. My brother has a 2 yr spacing and the other day big bro jumped on top of 11 mo old. When my brother asked him why, the almost 3 y/o said "I was trying to die him!" Yikes! I don't hear those kind of stories from my 3 yr spacing friends, but maybe they're keeping them to themselves.

But you never know, maybe DH and I have been blessed w/ mellow love-bug kids. Hoping the same for you!

[BellaClaudia]

Normally I would not send anyone to the Parenting magazine
as I do not value that type of thought they represent
but they keep sending me the issues home and I sometimes glance
and grrr..

anyhoo.:

there was this interesting magazine on spacing kids
and I only think that it was interesting because it really
tried to show few perspectives and few space age difference
groups so it could be of value to you to glance.

you don't have to buy that thing, they have it everywhere
so you can just stop at grocery store's check out and
glance at it while waiting in line..

If you ask me though :-)... and it is me not having second child
at this point for different resasons but I was myself wondering
what is good spacing and I think that one needs to consider
what it really means.. good for you as parents or good for them
kids... because those two somehow do not seem to mean the same
from my perspective.

I have daughter who is 4 year old and I myself have to consider
third side - my abilities as a parent. I was totally overwhelmed
with logistics of one baby and it just got easier at 4 so if you
would slap at me another baby I would just not be able to do it.
So it is not for everyone. Not for me at least but It is for many
to have two small babies at the same time although all those
that I know do really suffer immensly in many areas so
I really wonder if it is all worth that "advantage".

Having said that I mysel would defenetely not even look at
the second child before first is at least 4. for the following reasons

- logistics (one baby goes this way the other goes that way.. while
I go nuts).. I was not able to cook dinner or do a thing having one
super attached baby so add to it second child??? plus nursing as it was and is was important and my body was not supporting one that well so that is that

- I think that baby needs mother and I think it is one on one thing.
it needs whole mother and not shared mother as mother that is shared
is tired, exhosted and can not offer that much to two children.
of course people do it every day but that is just me. I believe in every child's right to a mother for good few years. period.

- I think that nature did it for a reason .. implemented selfishness and
aggression in small kids so to discourage parents from having two at a time..
and that actually really takes toll on siblings as they are in the same age group if you ask me... while this all is really much easier while older kid is just.. older and has this maternal instincts toward dolls and such kicked in so the baby is welcomed addition and there is no problem


so that whole advantage of being out of diapers after few years for me has a big price tag on marriage, sanity and well being of kids... if I was to have second child it could be based on the above.

good luck and god bless.

[emma1325]

I think 2-ish years is a great split, in general. My girls are 23 months apart, they are now nearly 4 and nearly 6 and are great friends. However, we're wanting a third, but this baby will be 5-6 years apart from my youngest. We're still considering a fourth, in which case we will use breastfeeding as birth control and let nature take it's course as to when #4 comes along (the method we used which led to the conception of #2!!)

[moaningminny]

My girls are 23 months apart too. We've always thought that no less than two years (we almost squeaked by) but no more than 3 years apart would be ideal.

My youngest is almost 2.5 now and I can't imagine going through pregnancy and dealing with a newborn again at this point in time. It gives me the heebeejeebees.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by BellaClaudia

Normally I would not send anyone to the Parenting magazine
as I do not value that type of thought they represent
but they keep sending me the issues home and I sometimes glance
and grrr..

anyhoo.:

there was this interesting magazine on spacing kids
and I only think that it was interesting because it really
tried to show few perspectives and few space age difference
groups so it could be of value to you to glance.

you don't have to buy that thing, they have it everywhere
so you can just stop at grocery store's check out and
glance at it while waiting in line..

If you ask me though :-)... and it is me not having second child
at this point for different resasons but I was myself wondering
what is good spacing and I think that one needs to consider
what it really means.. good for you as parents or good for them
kids... because those two somehow do not seem to mean the same
from my perspective.

I have daughter who is 4 year old and I myself have to consider
third side - my abilities as a parent. I was totally overwhelmed
with logistics of one baby and it just got easier at 4 so if you
would slap at me another baby I would just not be able to do it.
So it is not for everyone. Not for me at least but It is for many
to have two small babies at the same time although all those
that I know do really suffer immensly in many areas so
I really wonder if it is all worth that "advantage".

Having said that I mysel would defenetely not even look at
the second child before first is at least 4. for the following reasons

- logistics (one baby goes this way the other goes that way.. while
I go nuts).. I was not able to cook dinner or do a thing having one
super attached baby so add to it second child??? plus nursing as it was and is was important and my body was not supporting one that well so that is that

- I think that baby needs mother and I think it is one on one thing.
it needs whole mother and not shared mother as mother that is shared
is tired, exhosted and can not offer that much to two children.
of course people do it every day but that is just me. I believe in every child's right to a mother for good few years. period.

- I think that nature did it for a reason .. implemented selfishness and
aggression in small kids so to discourage parents from having two at a time..
and that actually really takes toll on siblings as they are in the same age group if you ask me... while this all is really much easier while older kid is just.. older and has this maternal instincts toward dolls and such kicked in so the baby is welcomed addition and there is no problem


so that whole advantage of being out of diapers after few years for me has a big price tag on marriage, sanity and well being of kids... if I was to have second child it could be based on the above.

good luck and god bless.

Just to comment on your thoughts here (not argue, of course, just comment,) I really think it depends on the person on how well having 2 babies is tolerated. For me (and mine weren't terribly close together; they were nearly 2 years apart) it certainly wasn't easy at times, but was well worth my efforts.

Now my girls are older (4 and 6) and we have our difficult moments but generally they are such a blessing to each other. They play together well and are growing up together. My oldest doesn't remember life before her sister, and I am so glad we had them close together.

At the same time, I can understand your point of view and have had moments in which I questioned whether or not I and DH were sane having two kids close together, lol.

[D'sMama]

Wow, this is really interesting. There are 24 votes so far on the poll and 11 said 3 years. That's a pretty significant percentage. Hmm.

I noticed in one of the comments that someone said something about a "fantasy" of having the kids be best friends if they were close in age. I totally have that fantasy because I wish I'd had siblings closer in age. But so far that's the only real reason I want to have them closer together. Not a very good reason, especially since age is no guarantee that they'll like each other.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by Peony

I always said at least 3 years, now I have #2 and #3 that are 2.5 years apart, and let me say again, at least 3 years!

I'm in this boat too. I always felt three years was a great spacing too, and ds and dd are 13 months apart, and I gotta say again, I think three years would have been better for them both.

I wouldn't ever recommend someone intentionally plan for 13 months apart, that is for sure.

Our next will unfortunately be spaced further apart than three years because ds and dd were so close together that it is just not prudent to have more until these "virtual twins" (they are actually closer in age developmentally, as ds has developmental delays...probably closer to a few months apart) are in a more independent phase, like early elementary.

But no matter what you plan, the truth is, you don't have control about when you get pregnant, or if you are adopting, when you get a placement. You just don't. Plan all you want (I am a planner too, by nature), but you'd be pretty lucky in my opinion if it all went as planned.

[sewchris2642]

I know you said that you don't want to hear it, but it does really depend on each family. My first 2 are 2.5 years apart. We were going for 3 years apart but I have no problems getting pregnant. There is 4 years apart between Erica and Angela because of Erica's personality. And while Dylan was a complete surprise and occasionally I look back and think he should have been closer in age to his sisters, it was best for his personality to be an only child. We are able to follow his interests because he is an "only" child. And it has been nice having extra eyes and hands to contain him. Even then, he got away from us a lot.

So I voted other. It's going to depend on your personality, your so/dh's personality, the peronalities of your other children, and your collective goals and vision of your family.

[sewchris2642]

Originally Posted by D'sMama

Wow, this is really interesting. There are 24 votes so far on the poll and 11 said 3 years. That's a pretty significant percentage. Hmm.

The 3 year spacing comes from the fact that it takes a woman's body about 2 years to return to normal after being pregnant and giving birth. The hormone levels return to normal and the reserves of fat, vitamins, minerals, etc have all been restored. And, if the woman is exclusive breastfeeding and doing child led weaning, that about when her body will be ready for another child.

[Drummer's Wife]

I voted 2 years apart b/c that's how far apart my four kids are (now ages 2, 4, 6, & 8). We were TTC each time, and are happy w/their age gap.

That all said, I do see the benefits of waiting longer. And I will get to experience that if we have #5.

[alegna]

Personally, I think 2 years (minimum) of breastmilk is a birthright. As such, spacing of close to 3 years + would be better.

-Angela

[flapjack]

Alegna, I don't understand, what's a birthright? What about adopted kids, or moms who just can't do it?

I have two less than two years apart and another two born just over two years apart, with a five year gap in the middle. It rocks. The big two had a degree of independence when DD was born, were able to help entertain her in the really demanding days of babyhood, and were really big helps when DS3 came along. We're not the Duggars, we don't ask for this- but it is absolutely great. My heart melts every time I see the four of them walking along hand in hand. Being honest, I am freaking out about the idea of 3 under 5, and I freaked out at the prospect of two less than 15 months apart (we have an angel and a few miscarriages scattered around the family). If you want a big family, put a big gap in there somewhere. Or two, or three.
For me, I don't have an issue with having two in nappies. It's expensive, yes, but that's the only real cost. I've found that sibling rivalry is almost nil, apart from my second (born before the gap) who is jealous of everyone except the baby. Breastfeeding is generally easy for me- I've chosen to wean during this pregnancy, which is why I'm finding Alegna's comment so remarkably offensive- and pregnancy is also generally easy for me, apart from pelvic girdle problems. If either of these are a challenge for you, you might want a bigger spacing. Where I am having a problem, however, and I can see it getting bigger, is that I have a 3.5yo who still wants or needs to be physically lifted and carried sometimes- into her car seat, for example- and this is becoming a challenge for me now at 20 weeks pregnant. At term, I can imagine it's going to be near impossible.

[ann_of_loxley]

I love age gap threads! lol - It is something I have spend years thinking about. Everything with DS went tits up and I thought I never wanted any more children because of that experience (which was mostly highly un-informed with a huge lack of support in all the right places!) - But when he was three months old, I felt for the first time in my life what they call 'broody'. It was such a strong feeling! Of course, I was not even dreaming of actually having another child with DS that age (and DH was still set on the idea of an 'only child', so/but it gave me plenty of time to think about the 'age gap' I felt would be best for all our family.

I agree with Bella that there are different things/persepectives to think about. And all of these things are best to be realistic about without assumptions that you can not possibly predict.
1). You as the parent. Your personality, your capabilities.
2). Your child. Their personality, etc.
3). The unknown second child - your capabilities as a parent of more than one based on all the above.

This is why its a personal decision. The answer to these things are going to be different from person to person - so they are going to be different from family to family. The 'right' age gap is going to be different from family to family - but I do think there are some fundamental things that fall true for all families simply because we are all human. I think Bella has pointed out a lot of good things and if I were thinking of having another child (and I am! hehe), then they are all things I would base it on as well!

We started trying for another when, if I fell pregnant that first month, the age gap would have been 3 years and 8 months. This would have been good for us and I would never have considered trying any sooner! hehe I had a miscarriage and since then have had several. As devestating as the first few miscarriages were though, I am glad we did not concieve then - when my EDD's came and went, I knew the timing would not have been right for DS - in turn, affecting me and my parenting - in turn affecting my children. DS did a huge leap of growing around this time - he went from a toddler to a child. I also don't think its fair to assume the future (if I find myself thinking - '9 months is a long time, he will change by then' - I know I need to stop myself because he may change by then or he may not! If I assume he will in a way that will benefit me and my desires, then I may end up pushing him to change and that is also not desired imo). So I voted 4 years+ for what I feel is an idea age gap for our family - and I do actually feel this is an ideal age gap for all families (based on breastfeeding, logistics, child development, most of what Bella has said already alone).

I personally feel that if anyone is thinking of having another child, that its probably best to wait until they are two years of age. Then you can more greatly know your child for who they are and more realistically consider all the perspectives to age gap and decide from there what you feel is best for your family. You can't always gurantee how big an age gap is going to be (secondary infertility, other fertility issues come up, etc) - but you can at least try and prevent an age gap if thats what you want to do. 'Accidents' do happen of course, and I think people can manage - they do because they have to. But if you are planning it, why plan to just manage? - I wouldn't personally plan that. I think if anything, its good to at least try and plan - cause at least then you are thinking about it, yourself and your child and your family. Once you already have a child, when planning more, I think its good to consider them too because they are also part of the family.

[ann_of_loxley]

I don't find alegnas comment offensive. It is her personal belief and her right to state that (and she didn't put anyone down for not doing otherwise). I went through a lot of breastfeeding issues and comments like that used to offend me, but I realised it was because of my own quilt/remorse/what I dealt with and felt concerning my own issues that I went through with breastfeeding - and not the comments or anyone elses opinions on the matter.

I feel breastfeeding and your thoughts/beliefs on that are very important to think about. So many people go on to have the 'two year age gap' (less or more) between their children thinking they will be able to breastfeed through pregnancy and are devestated when their milk dries up. So many people don't know that, for the majority of woman - that is just what happens due to hormones/etc. Only something like 30% of woman are able to breastfeed through pregnancy (and if you have been able to do it before, you are not guanteed to be able to do it with another pregnancy). This fact however, is just a number and doesn't include other information such as the pain and discomfort of breastfeeding that so often occurs during pregnancy and that if you succeed, the challanges of tandem nursing. (let alone, how this can affect your overall health and your unborn babies health, etc - cause pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding can take a lot out of your body!) I don't know how many threads I have read about them being sad that their milk has dried up or that they are finding it so painful to breastfeeding in pregnancy that they are having to wean (much sooner than they would have hoped for) - all of these feelings added with pregnancy hormones! If breastfeeding is important to you, and you feel your child deserves at least a minimum of something (and on this forum, many people do feel this way - CLW or at least 2 years as stated by the WHO/LLL, etc) - then it is something to consider when trying for another. Also, I find that feelings on breastfeeding do change as your child grows. When DS was born, I thought up to a year was fantastic and anything after was just weird/odd. Now I am full supported of CLW for health, emotional and other child development reasons - and I do 'by it' .