Child Spacing - Page 2

[Smokering]

My first brother and I are 15 months apart (I'm older) and we never got along. I guess it doesn't help that he's autistic so we're currently at least 10 years apart mentally and emotionally. I guess I actually tried to kill him by standing on him when they first brought him home. My second brother is about 5 years younger. We get along great and always have. I still remember standing on a chair to call my dad's pager when my mother went into labor and pulling into the hospital parking lot after he was born to meet him. Maybe we didn't need a 5 year gap to be friends and maybe I could have gotten along with my first brother if he weren't autistic... who really knows though.

It's funny the way things work out... I had a very tempestuous relationship with my closest-in-age sister (1.5 years apart) growing up; I didn't get on well at all with the others (one 3 years older, one 3 years younger and autistic). Then the two youngest were born when I was 9 and 12, so it wasn't a very sibling-like relationship.

Thing is, now we're grown up, the oldest three of us - 28, 27 and 24 - seem like we're practically the same age. We were asked if we were triplets once, in fact. So we all get along really well, considering we live in different places. And I have a really good relationship with sister #5, who just turned 15! She comes over most Saturday nights to watch movies - we're working through Harry Potter right now. So I guess it's all panned out OK in the end - which doesn't mean one shouldn't consider childhood relationships, of course. But age gaps do become a lot less important with time.

[lookatreestar]

i too wanted to make sure there was a solid bfing foundation of atleast 12 months... looking back i would have been crushed if dd weaned so in hindsight i might have waited til 2 years? also my body wasn't in the best shape, and i feel like i wasn't at the top of my game with vitamin stores and the like. overall i am happy my two are 26 mos apart. like a pp said, dd was never jealous, she doesn't really remember a time w/o ds. she looooves to call him the baby.

[spatulagirl]

I actually prefer to make sure there is a strong breastfeeding relationship for 2 years. So my kids are spaced out like this:

2 years 9 months between #1 and #2
3 years 10 months between #2 and #3
2 years 10 months between #3 and the babe in in my belly

Now I didn't plan it perfectly as I have never used BC, that is my body's natural rhythm. But it has worked out perfectly.

Also, my two girls who are almost 4 years apart are really close and play wonderfully together.

[MyFullHouse]

My first two are 3y9m apart.
My 3rd and 4th are 3y10m apart.
4 and 5 will be 3y8m apart.
That spacing seems to work well for me, lol.

My girls are 13 months apart, and that was difficult for me.

Still, I think there's a huge range when it comes to what "works" and what any one person will view as "best". Even the spacing that was toughest for me comes with its own benefits. And my 12yo is the best of all of them with the 3yo. I'm pretty sure my girls are going to be fabulous with the new baby, even though the 8yo often finds the 3yo to be awfully pesky. My 7yo spends a lot of time with him though, because he's the nicest to her.

Sibling relationships are too complicated to boil down to age spacing. Now, a parent's willingness to "start over" after certain periods is a whole other ball of wax!

[lillymonster]

My children will be 4 years apart. Honestly, that is perfect for me. I don't think you can decide until your child gets here. My daughter had many food allergies, sensory processing disorder and is "spirited". I also got very sick with my pregnancies so I needed a child that could play by herself, but even at 3 1/2, that is hard for my DD. So for people who have easy going children, then I guess you can pick any age, but with me, it was based entirely on my child and what I can handle. I nursed my daughter until she was over 3, she had milk and soy allergies and feeding delays - so the "formula zone" was not an option - she was nursed entirely or be on formula at 2 1/2, I had no other choice.

My family, there are twins, then 4 years later, a girl, then 11 months later a boy, then me, 8 years later.

My sister and brother (the ones less than a year apart) fought so terribly there were ER visits. For me, my brother and I are close with an 8 year difference.

I really think it depends on the temperament of your children and if you get sick during your pregnancies. For me, I felt like I had no choice but to be more than 3 years apart.

[BeauGeek]

My first two are 17 months apart...it was a little crazy for a while. The third will 6.5 years apart from my DD, just seemed to work that way and the older kiddos are so excited to help out & meet their new sibling, so I tend to find this will be a pretty neat spacing!

[nia82]

Mine will be 2.5 years apart. I'm glad I didn't try earlier, as I didn't loose my milk, but nursing pains got so bad at one point I had to wean (I was crying and wanted to scream, really, really bad pain), so DS nursed a little more than 2 years which was my goal. So we tried in May and it worked right away, we seem to be somewhat super fertile as we got pregnant right away with both kids.
I don't know yet how it will be, I always thought 3 years was a good spacing as so many psychologists recommend it. But I also think the older's child personality plays a role in how they react. My niece was a little over 3 when her sister was born and she is still super jealous and bites and scratches the baby, even though supposedly that doesn't happen at that age anymore. I think we'll grow into whatever situation we will be faced with.

[babymango]

In an ideal world, I would have four kids with about 1.5 years in between each. Or 2 close together, then a 3 year gap, then 2 more. But real life needs to be taken into account, so this is not likely going to happen.
One of the main factors for me is work. In Canada, I get a year long, paid maternity leave. But I have to put in X numbers of hours in between each birth to be eligible. With the schedule that I have at work, it means working for a few months. BUT, I feel some responsability toward my workplace, my clients and my collegues. It doesnt feel right to go back just long enough to bank those hours. I love my job, and we need the money, so becoming SAHM is not an option for me, for now.
BUT, we are really lucky that DH had to move out of Canada for 2 years for his training, starting around the time I had my first kid. That meant I could be away from my work, but still getting paid, for a full year. Then we had to decide whether we would prefer having two kids really close together (16-17 months), or wait until I go back to work next year, work long enough to bank the hours and feel comfortable taking a leave again, which would probably mean a gap of at least 3 years. Since Im not that young and I want more than 2 kids, I didnt like the second option too much. I guess I could have just gone back to work sooner after having the second kid, but that just didnt feel right to me.

[Lady Lilya]

I didn't read all the replies....

I think it depends a lot on the individual kids, and on the level of help you get.

So, DS was very high needs, and DH turned out to be too easily overwhelmed by him and more trouble (dealing with his mood issues) than help. If he had been an easier baby, or if I had more help, I would have had a second baby much sooner. Instead, I aimed for DS to be almost 4 when his sibling arrives.

[justduckyangie]

My first two are 4 years almost to the day. It was mostly on purpose, dd1 was/is a very high needs child. The rest was just circumstances 2&3 are 5 years apart and 3&4 will be 3 years apart. The first and last will be 12 years apart.

[mojobot2000]

DH and I had originally planned to start trying for our 2nd when DD1 turned 3, but we got surprised right after she turned 1 instead. Now that I'm about to have the 2nd baby, I'm really glad it turned out this way--though of course he's not here yet, so who knows, I may be cursing myself soon enough.

There are a lot of things that would be easier with a larger spacing, I'm sure--mostly #1 being more independent, in preschool a few times a week, giving me more time with the newborn and more time for sleep.

BUT, having them closer together means that I'll be totally through with the super high-needs phase of child-rearing in just a few years. (We're not planning on having any more.) This is important to me because I'm a SAHM now--I love it and wouldn't have it any other way, but I don't see home-making and child-rearing as my lifelong vocation, and I'm looking forward to the years when the kids need less of me and I can do some other things with my life! For that reason, I think it would have been extremely tough for me to start over with a newborn as soon as DD1 got some independence. (That said, I anticipate a very difficult first year, or at least several months.)

As far as the child's needs go, I think this totally depends on the child and on so many circumstances other than spacing. My older sister and I are 22 months apart--almost exactly the difference between my 2!--and it was VERY HARD for me growing up, and now we hardly speak...that is mostly due to my sister's personality (disorder), though being so close meant I had very little space to escape her growing up. Of course, my children will both be amazing little angels, so everything will always be fine.

[pollyanna123]

I found two under two (22 months apart) to be less than ideal for a number of reasons. First, while I was anticipating the nursing part to be okay, it wasn't. Yes, we had made it to a year, but my little DD still needed it beyond that time frame, and my milk dried up right after I got pregnant. It was really hard on both her and me. I also struggled a lot with juggling both of their needs when my 2nd was born. My 1st was still very needy in the nighttime parenting sense, and I just didn't feel like I had gotten enough time with her alone.

This time, there will be 2 years, 9 months between the two. I've been much more comfortable with it this time around. My DS had two solid years of nursing and is sleeping much better than my DD was when I got pregnant with him (b/c she was only 13 months). He's completely potty trained, whereas I had to do that with DD when DS was still a young baby. That said, they play together well now and they're like two peas in a pod.

Before AP parenting, I would've said, "The closer the better" with regard to spacing. My parents had me and then 14 months later had twins! We all had a lot of fun growing up and are still close.

With an almost 3-year spacing this time around, I'm hoping to keep the advantages of having "close-in-age" siblings while losing some of the disadvantages of having two under two.

[EnchantedMamma]

Aside from giving your body ample recovery time (to re-store nutrients, etc), I don't think there's an 'ideal' spacing.

We considered:

- That I have serious fatigue issues and could NOT handle a child while DS still needed a lot of constant attention. Now that he can self-feed completely, etc, I am much more comfortable.

- That I wanted to have a 2nd child and wrap up childbearing so that I can get back on certain prescriptions and get back on track personally!

- That I did not want to wait so long that I would find myself in the middle of a career/business spurt that would make pregnancy a conflict. Now is a good, quiet time for me career wise. I am situated and know the routine.

- That our children might possibly be able to attend daycare together and have an extra sense of family/togetherness, which would not be possible later down the road. This matters to me since I work FT outside of the home. It’s a nice bonus.

[lyterae]

I think that 3.5-4 years would have been ideal for us, there will be 5 years between DD and the new baby and that is more than I really wanted. That said it's been really nice to have a mostly independent child while going through morning sickness,first trimester fatigue, etc.. I hope that there will be closer to a 3-4 year gap between #2 and #3, but so far it hasn't really been in our hands to decide.

[MaerynPearl]

Having had a spacing of 2.5 years and one of 5/7.5 years...

Id have to say the ideal spacing for me really is whatever happens.

There are pros to both having them closer together (like both are out of the diaper phase near the same time) and pros to having them further apart (like older kids are more able to help with baby and around the house in general)

I would never purposely get pregnant before 1 year postpartum though, because I have seen what that can do to a woman's body and its not pretty. You really do need the time to recover.



For spacing beyond baby years... it really does not matter as much as a childs personality does.

I am horribly close to both my little brother who is 1 1/2 years younger than me (1 year, 9 months to be exact) and my baby sister who is 10 years younger. I extremely dislike both my older brother who is a bit over 2 years older than me and the one who is 7 or 8 years older. All of the other siblings of various ages (I come from a very large family) are various levels of like/dislike.

It has nothing to do with their age and everything to do with who they are.

[ComaWhite]

...

Edited by ComaWhite - 2/4/12 at 3:53pm

[myk]

i always thought 3 years was pretty good. that way i'd be done bfing the first, and she'd be getting ready for nursery school at about the same time baby's born. so it didn't work out that way - DD1 will be 6 at the end of the month and DD2 is due in january c'est la vie! i'm happy about it though because with DD1 in school full time, it gives me more time to rest without interfering with her routine or letting her feel neglected.