Originally Posted by limabean
I can see the logistical problems with their particular kids, since the two sets of full siblings are opposite sex, but the above statement is crazy. If it meant the difference between staying afloat and going into bankruptcy, obviously the only sane choice is to have the kids share rooms.
This. It would be much simpler if her dh had two boys and she had two girls or whatever. But, even with the logistical problems, risking bankruptcy for this is nuts. I'd have the kids share rooms, and do whatever I could to make sure that the "visiting" (don't like that term, but not sure what to call it) kids had some
space of their own.
I will say that I shared a room with my sister and loved it. DD1 and ds2 share a room and they love it. (We'll ultimately put dd1 and dd2 together, which isn't ideal, imo - 6 year age gap - but it is what it is.) There's a family in our complex where an 17 year old, 15 year old and 5 year old boy share a room. They have three sisters - 14, 13 and 7 months. The two older girls share the other room, and the baby will move in there, as well. They have three bedrooms for a family of eight - obviously, the kids can't each have their own room.
I find the "deserve" terminology here really
weird. I think the kids "deserve" to have a family that isn't bankrupt, personally.