# What is the ideal spacing between kids?



## D'sMama (May 4, 2008)

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 (Nov 27, 2003)

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 (Dec 2, 2001)

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 (May 4, 2008)

Quote:


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 (Jun 11, 2007)

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 (Nov 21, 2001)

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 (Aug 13, 2005)

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 (Aug 1, 2008)

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 (May 23, 2005)

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 (Dec 31, 2007)

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 (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


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 (May 4, 2008)

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 (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


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 (Feb 28, 2009)

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 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


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 (Jun 5, 2005)

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 (Jan 14, 2003)

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

-Angela


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

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 (Sep 21, 2007)

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 (Sep 21, 2007)

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'







.


----------



## momofmine (Jan 8, 2007)

My kids are almost five years apart, and this was a good spacing for me. First nursed until 3.5 years, then I had about 7 months of not nursing/being pregnant, which I feel was a good thing and allowed my body to regenerate and replenish itself, and then I got pregnant with number 2. We didn't plan it that way, but it has worked well for me. I don't think everyone needs that time but it helped me.

By then, my oldest could understand a lot more about having a baby, and could do things like get me a drink of water while I was nursing! We read a LOT of books in those early months of baby #2, we just sat around and nursed and read for a big chunk of the day. There were definitely times that were difficult, like when older one couldn't quite yet control emotions and anger and younger one was still a toddler doing things like smashing LEGO creations without even knowing he was doing it. But once the younger one could actually "play", things have been great since. The older one plays more imaginatively still, because of his younger brother, and I think that's really neat. I am sure they will go through phases when they will be very different like 15 and 10, whoa, that will be odd. But they are very close. Oh, we also homeschool, so I feel like that is a huge factor in their close relationship, despite the age difference. They are sort of forced to play together, and my older one is not as influenced by a lot of "older kid" play as he would be if he was in school all day, I think.

I'd try not to overthink it. Because you can never know until you are there!


----------



## momofmine (Jan 8, 2007)

I have to agree with Ann about the breastfeeding. Not in any way judging anyone's else's choices, just think about how YOU feel and what is important to you, in your ideal world. For me, breastfeeding has been a wonderful experience. My first naturally CLW, just gradually over time, and stopped sometime after 3.5 years. Then I had time for my store to be built back up before getting pregnant again. The same has happened for child 2, and I really feel like I had time to enjoy both of them as little ones. I honestly can't imagine stuff like lifting in and out of car seats while pregnant, etc., but of course, that is only because this is what my own experience has been. This is not to say it can't be done and is done very well by many wonderful mamas





















just that for me, this spacing has worked out well.

Everybody has their own set of challenges that will affect how they perceive their experience. So for example, think about what other things you have going on in your life that will impact your experience of parenting (other stresses, like school, work, caring for elderly parents, moving, financial issues, etc).

I still say don't OVERthink it though. On some level, you have to just take a leap of faith!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


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

Sadly not all kids get it- but I do think it's a right.

-Angela


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

For me and my life and my family and *our* life, I cannot imagine a spacing much less than 2.5 or three years.

THis is colored by our climate, with its bitterly cold winters and the required heavy clothing and bundling and difficulty of getting everyone in and out of carseats, but that just points it up more.

I can't imagine trying to get out to a snow-covered car with a toddler too young to walk on their own and climb up and a baby so thick with blankets that she's difficult to carry.

That just illustrates my thought: Every baby needs time where they're the baby. Where they can be carried when they need to be and treated like the baby they still are.


----------



## KweenKrunch (Jul 25, 2009)

We do completely CLW and, so whenever I am able to get pregnant, I do. I feel like my body knows when our family is ready for another child, and when it is, we have one.


----------



## KweenKrunch (Jul 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Sadly not all kids get it- but I do think it's a right.

-Angela

I know a mother who pumped for a full 18 months after she placed her child for adoption, and shipped the milk to the adoptive parents.

Also, when my friend adopted a baby a few years ago, about 5 of us pumped for her so that the baby was EBMF for 6 months and continued to have MM until the age of 2.

It can be complicated - but you can make it happen.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KweenKrunch* 
I know a mother who pumped for a full 18 months after she placed her child for adoption, and shipped the milk to the adoptive parents.

Also, when my friend adopted a baby a few years ago, about 5 of us pumped for her so that the baby was EBMF for 6 months and continued to have MM until the age of 2.

It can be complicated - but you can make it happen.

Those are fabulous stories! I wish every baby was that lucky.

-Angela


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

They are fabulous stories! -I have even heard of mothers who go on a cocktail of drugs and pump like crazy to produce milk for their adopted babies (I saw a documentary on this!) - and these woman have never had children but were able to breastfeed their adopted babies! - Wonderful!


----------



## KweenKrunch (Jul 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Those are fabulous stories! I wish every baby was that lucky.

-Angela

Yes! In the case of the adoption - one of the conditions of the placement was that the adoptive parents would accept and use the expressed milk for as long as the birth mother wanted to pump. The birth mom found a couple who was MORE than happy to feed the baby MM (they actually preferred it), and it was very healing for the birth mom too - who felt like she was contributing to the well being of the baby in a big way, even if she was not at a point in her life where she felt she could take on the role of "mother."


----------



## confustication (Mar 18, 2006)

I have a 7 year old, a one year old (12 months), and I'm due early in Sept.

For my dd, the huge age gap was probably a good thing, she was very high needs (though I didn't know it then- I had nothing to compare to!) and has needed that intense one on one.

DS is super laid back, and I really don't worry about the close spacing with the next. I figure we're in for an intense couple years, but because of my age and hat I want in life, I didn't want a huge spacing again. I'm pretty ready to be 'done' with pregnancy/childbearing.

Also, FWIW, DS is still nursing, and transfering a significant quantity of milk (though a bit less in the past week or so as I'm back to colostrum now) and I anticipate that he will continue nursing throughout the next year or two. Having closely spaced pregnancies doesn't make that impossible.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *confustication* 
Having closely spaced pregnancies doesn't make that impossible.

Very true. Some women keep their milk. Thing is though, it can't be counted on.

-Angela


----------



## bronxmom (Jan 22, 2008)

Well, I have a 10 year old and a 7 month old. I can't speak to their future relationship but I can speak to their relationship now, what parenting is like and the finances. I LOVE it!!! I was not planning a second child; I was for having an only but I divorced and began a new relationship and wanted that experience with him and am so glad I did.

My daughter loves her younger brother! It's the most intense, selfless love I can imagine - honestly, it shocks me. Especially since I had a lot of sibling rivalry issues. She was part of the birth and all the prep (it was a homebirth). She's very willing and completely capable of helping. She entertains, changes diapers, sits in the back with the baby in the carseat and sings him to sleep/feeds him/etc. He also loves her intensely and uniquely - he is just clearly delighted by her. Their relationship astounds me and is one of the most wonderful things I can imagine.

It's also good for my daughter because she's going through an intense time developmentally and it gives her a break. She's able to re-experience babyhood/childish things as she grows up. She has a bit of a refuge at home and it focuses her on family. At the same time, she has developed a real sense of competence and confidence in her ability to soothe/care for him and this is a huge self-esteem builder.

As a parent, it's incredible. It's like there are 3 parents in some ways. Also, my two kids' needs are so different that it doesn't feel like they're competing for my attention - rather just totally different experiences. They each get very specific, dedicated one-on-one time. Also, I still have the ability (as I did with an only child) to integrate my kids into my life rather than re-adjusting everything to a totally child-centered universe. I have more emotional reserves to meet the needs of my kids. I'm not as exhausted.

Financially, I only have one kid with daycare, diaper, etc costs. My 10 year old does not cost a lot. College will be spaced out.

Looking forward, they'll each get time as an only child in the house but also as part of a sibling relationship. My son is going to have an older sister when he hits adolescence that he can turn to who is more experienced. As they get older they can choose what type of relationship to have. I'm pretty thrilled with it all.

The only disadvantages I can see are starting all over again or if this means your a parent really late into life. I had my first when I was 26 so this space worked out with plenty of time to have a second and still look forward to post-kid-in-the-house time.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

I have two 'sets' of two children. There are 3 years seven months between each two and a big gap of 6 years between the pairs. I had two in my 20s and two in my 30s and there are just over 13 years between my eldest and youngest

This isn't planned timing by any means but I think it took me until each 1st one was almost three to feel physically recuperated, that I had had enough good nights' sleep and that I could face feeling so tired again! Pregnancy makes me tired for months. Once the babe is out I'm not so bad.

Both times the elder one was able to do things for them self and also be able to do things to help.

I didn't really plan to have this spacing it just felt right to me. Don't plan too much and don't wait for the 'perfect' time. Take a chance and see what the universe brings.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KweenKrunch* 
I know a mother who pumped for a full 18 months after she placed her child for adoption, and shipped the milk to the adoptive parents.

Also, when my friend adopted a baby a few years ago, about 5 of us pumped for her so that the baby was EBMF for 6 months and continued to have MM until the age of 2.

It can be complicated - but you can make it happen.

Wow! You were nursing two *and* pumping to donate? That's hardcore!

I remember how ravenous I was nursing my DD (10 pounds at birth, 28 pounds at one year). I'd find myself at the fridge eating cheese and hardboiled eggs, like my body took me there on autopilot because it craved protein! I can't imagine doing it vegan for just her -- how on earth did you manage to get enough calories not to wither away?


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

Quote:


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.

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.

I totally agree that it is a fantasy. My sister and I were closely spaced, and I think we spent our entire childhood torturing my parents for that decision.







We fought like cats and dogs, never played together, and today as adults, we tolerate each other simply because we are family but there isn't a close relationship there by any means. DH has a brother that is 7 years older then him, while they were not close as children, they are very close as adults. I often feel that if my sister and I had been spaced farther apart that we would have a different and better relationship together. We were forced to be together too much because of our close spacing when we didn't want to be. And the sibling jealousy was BAD, DH is always floored when I tell him about the fights we got into, apparently him and his brother never had fights like we did, and this wasn't just as small children either, it went into our teen years. Both of us ended up in the ER a few times from our injuries, like the time she bashed me over the head with a rock when we were 12 and 13.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Very true. Some women keep their milk. Thing is though, it can't be counted on.

-Angela

Well, to be fair, sometimes you can't count on breastmilk production period. And sometimes sh!t happens (such as cancer or other medical emergency that necessitates the mother going on hard core medication before weaning and/or not being able to wait two years for treatment). All three of my kids were self-weaned, I believe I might have lost my milk for about a month, though I can't be sure since DD still happily comfort nursed.

Child spacing is by no means a guarantee that nursing will happen unimpeded and uninterrupted. Neither is having children closely spaced a guarantee that it will. You can't *count* on it regardless. And just because you had a hard/easy time with nursing the first time does not guarantee a repeat. I have seen many women who struggled with their first go on to have very very successful and happy breastfeeding with subsequent children, and folks run into problems with round 2 or 3. I wonder how much of that is about one's support though. I had to toss the LC out of my room and tell her never to come back with my twins. Lady didn't have freakin' clue--if I'd followed her advice then that would have been the end for my boys. I was kind of surprised when her superior backed me up, but I guess they figured not to mess with me.









ETA: I think if you decide on close spacing, you have to be ready and willing to defend yourself from detractors of all kinds. Because there will be a lot of people who are going to look down on you and say "you can't." Doctors, nurses, friends, ect. Luckily for me I'm a bit on the obtuse side so a lot of the little snarky digs that people threw at me in the early days went over my head, and in general I have no problems defending myself. It can be really hard when people constantly try to take you down a notch, either right to your face or subtly. Though I am sure that if you have "too much" of a spacing between your kids you get more of the same.


----------



## KweenKrunch (Jul 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Wow! You were nursing two *and* pumping to donate? That's hardcore!

I remember how ravenous I was nursing my DD (10 pounds at birth, 28 pounds at one year). I'd find myself at the fridge eating cheese and hardboiled eggs, like my body took me there on autopilot because it craved protein! I can't imagine doing it vegan for just her -- how on earth did you manage to get enough calories not to wither away?


Well, to be fair, my DD1 wasn't nursing all that often, and I was sharing pumping duties with 4 (maybe 5?) other women, so I was only responsible for abt. 30 ounces per week









And hey, being vegan doesn't mean low-calorie! I probably went through two boxes of cereal and almond milk a day during that time, and went on a sweet-potato fry binge for a few months in there. I'm still nursing three, and yes I'm thin, but I'm fine!


----------



## newCTmama (Mar 1, 2007)

Lots of good thoughts here... tossing in my two cents! I always thought that I'd have a large family, many children spaced close together. Now,as DS is approaching his second year, that vision has changed. DH & I realized that it would be very difficult to meet DS's needs if I were pregnant/nursing a newborn right now. For example -- DS still wakes an average of 3 times/night to nurse or snuggle, and has tons of energy - if I were puking in the bathroom, it would be pretty hard to keep up with him, let alone have fun & enjoy this stage!

Now I have a few friends who have similarly aged or younger children and are thinking about a new babe or already pregnant, and I see that it is the right decision for them, and is not yet the best decision for us. I really need to sleep through the night for a bit before embarking on this journey again







Perhaps our next baby will be very mellow and we'll be ready a lot sooner, but for now, it's working well to be a family of three. So, all that to say that you may want to evlauate where you and your DC are in a few months/year/two years and go from there!


----------



## hempmama (Dec 16, 2004)

I think that closer together is better for the children in terms of being close growing up together. Further than about 3 years apart, and they aren't really ever peers as children. I don't think any spacing- large or small- has any effect on how close they are as adults, though. I think it's better to have the laser focus of both parents off them sooner, and for my oldest who are 17 months apart it is clear as day that the greatest gift I ever gave them was each other. They are buddies and best friends, the closest siblings I have ever seen, and it's only possible now because they are so close in age. My oldest never had any of the jealousy or transition issues I see in 3+ age gaps, because at that age it is so easy for anything to become the new normal. I do not believe breastmilk is anywhere near as wonderful and important as siblings and family strucutre, magical elixir that it is.

However, I think closer together can be MURDER on the mom. 17 months is rainbows and sunshine for them, but NO WAY was I going to do it again when we were going to have a third. The first few months after my second was born, I would pass off the baby the second my husband got home and go to my room and just...be. Silently, stare at the walls, look at the internet, completely still and quiet, for an hour, often more. I am an energetic person- don't need a lot of sleep, run marathons for the heck of it, but two babies had me flat. I really loved the close spacing, but I would think long and hard about whether you *really* are an energetic person before taking it on. It's not for everybody, and I think the stress of it could easily outweigh whatever closeness benefits one might get. My third is 2.5 years younger than my middle, and that is much easier, physically, for me. He did have jealousy and transition issues, very mild ones, but still nothing I had to worry about at all the first time. It's taking longer for them to become real friends (as opposed to the favored pet status the baby takes on until they can play as peers), and I wonder if my oldest and the baby ever will. They have their own relationship, and like I said above I believe this has no bearing on their adult relationship, but growing up with a sibling- it's special, if you can swing it.


----------



## pollyanna123 (Dec 21, 2005)

Mine are 21.5 months apart, and that was a little too close for me. My goal was to breastfeed for at least 2 years, which I did, but my DD was really dry nursing for most of my pregnancy. This is my single biggest driving factor in wanting to have a larger spacing between #2 and #3. Also, though, it was just ridiculously hard in the beginning, trying to be an emotionally responsive, attached parent to a baby and a toddler. Now that my oldest is three, I can see how much less demanding it would be, logistically, to have a three-year-old and a newborn, at least for us. We will be aiming for no less than 2.5 years and not much more than 3 years.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellaClaudia* 
- 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

I am playing with the idea of a 2nd child and trying to figure out what would be best for our family and I liked this way of thinking.... it is kinda what I have been thinking. I was reading up about hunter gatherer societies and the gap was about 4 years as babies are just so intense for the first 4 years that the society cannot afford to have one mother with more than one child under 4 (I don't know what happened with twins - although I remember folk stories from Zululand about twins being a bit taboo). I feel like the way I am living, I cannot give my child everything he needs if he has a sibling too quickly. I do not have much support around me and I would go totally crazy with two close together. I guess I am saying I do not feel like *I* have the resources to have two close together in age. 3 years sounds good to me (DS is almost 18 months, so it's gonna be a while)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Sadly not all kids get it- but I do think it's a right.

-Angela

I agree that this is an ideal, of two years breastmilk for all babies - but the reality is that this is not possible for a miriad of reasons.
It is a big big factor for me in waiting to have my 2nd.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

I picked 4 years but would go a year back or forward on that.


----------



## lness (Jul 14, 2009)

We're probably going for around 3 years too...even though we haven't had to make that decision yet (DD is only 4 months, I'm absolutely NOT ready to even think about another one yet!) I'd rather wait until I'm feeling ready for it, and until she's old enough that I can at least TRY to explain things to her.
My parents went for the "get it over with" route though - 3 kids in less than 3 years. So you're right to worry about jealousy: I was 15 months when my sister came home from the hospital, and I responded by climbing onto my parents' bed carrying a pitcher of iced tea and making my feelings known -- I guess I knew what was going on, and where! And 17 months after that, our brother came along, and little sis did the almost the same exact thing, except it was salad dressing on the couch! Moral of the story: If they're real close together, close doors and keep an eye on all condiments!


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

Ideally if I could handle it emotionally, physically and financially, I would like to do 1.5 years apart. That's how far apart my siblings and I all are from each other and while not all siblings get along (and we had our moments of course) for us it was great as we were very close growing up and even closer now that we are all adults.

However, I think I will need to space ours 3-4 years (maybe more, but much more and then I will be getting "old") financially and likely for my emotional and physical health too







And yes, I agree for your body's sake to recover from pregnancy, it is better to space at least 2-3 years. And a lot is going to depend on how we feel after our first arrives. Right now we want two kids, but we may feel differently after this one arrives and adjust our plans accordingly.


----------



## valerie mom of 4 (Jul 9, 2009)

I picked 1.5 yr.


----------



## KweenKrunch (Jul 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *valerie mom of 4* 
I picked 1.5 yr.

Most mothers are not menstruating, much less having fertile cycles, at 9 months pp (which you would have to be to have your children only 1.5 years apart), unless they are no longer nursing.

http://nfpandmore.org/wordpress/


----------



## KweenKrunch (Jul 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 

I agree that this is an ideal, of two years breastmilk for all babies - but the reality is that this is not possible for a miriad of reasons.
It is a big big factor for me in waiting to have my 2nd.

Breastmilk is not the "ideal." It is the norm.


----------



## jillmamma (Apr 11, 2005)

Honestly, I don't believe there IS an ideal. Larger gaps have their advantages (one baby at a time, more individual time with mom, older ones help, etc.) and smaller gaps have advantages (go through baby stage all at once, similar interests, may be easier to play together, etc.), but as far as how kids get along, I don't think the gap matters. I think it is more personalities that come into play there. I am the oldest of 4, there are 12 months between me and my sister, then 2.5 years to my brother, then almost 4 years to the next one. Mom said when us girls were little it helped a lot that we entertained each other a lot and played well together, but it was also nice for her to spend a little extra time with my youngest brother when all us older ones were in school too. My kids are 2.5 years, and will be 4.5 years, and I think it will work out fine both ways. So no answer from me!


----------



## Serenyd (Jan 6, 2008)

I've always thought 3 yrs would be perfect ... but look at me ... it doesn't always work out the way we plan! My sis and I are 3 yrs apart and get along well, and I know a lot of sibs 4 and 5 yrs apart that aren't close. Just my







:


----------



## Parker'smommy (Sep 12, 2002)

I'll just ditto Tigerchild.









But really, you can plan all you want, and sometimes things just don't work out the way you want. Maybe you're super fertile and can get pregnant at the drop of a hat







: and everything will go according to plan ( which I hope it does) but I know from experience that things don't always go the way you want unfortunately. I thought I had the "perfect spacing" as my first two were 3 years exactly apart and then #2 and #3 were scheduled to be 2 yrs. 4 months apart, and then almost 3 years apart. And well, I'm not pregnant right now and am looking at 5 + years spacing now. Before, that was devestating to me. Now? not so much. I just want an alive baby. I never thought that this would be my life and how my family would "look" either. But such is life. Learning you have no control over such things is very humbling.

I'd also tend to agree w/ Angela too. Nursing two years is my minnimum. And while many kids nurse through pregnancies ( #2 nursed through 2 pregnancies despite losing my milk each time...and rejoicing when it returned







) it's no guarantee. I would like to meet the needs of the kids I do have, before trying to add to that. But that's me. I had a friend wean her baby because she wanted to get pregnant, and she was having trouble and blamed the nursing on it. It still took her two years to get pregnant after weaning. She totally regrets weaning her dd so early. She was putting the needs of an unconceived child ahead of the one she had right there with her.

Good luck with whatever happens!!


----------



## Ornery (May 21, 2007)

I have both sides of the spectrum. I have an 8 1/2 year difference between my oldest ds and my dd and then a 23 month difference between her and my youngest ds. I love the fact that at 8, my son was old enough to really get to experience a lot of the joys of being an "only" child and then still have siblings. I also love the fact that my 5 yo and my 3 yo play together so well and keep each other entertained for hours on end. So I see it both ways. We have next to no sibling fighting in our home and it amazes me.

I grew up with a sister who is almost 4 yo older than I and we fought like cats and dogs. Literally. We still don't get along as adults.

As pp have said, I think it is completely personality based. You can have kids who will fight no matter what the age difference is or you can have kids who will love each other and get along no matter what.


----------



## turtlewomyn (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KweenKrunch* 
Most mothers are not menstruating, much less having fertile cycles, at 9 months pp (which you would have to be to have your children only 1.5 years apart), unless they are no longer nursing.

http://nfpandmore.org/wordpress/

Huh, I must be special then because my period came back right at 9 months (although the first cycle was annovulatory I belive) and DD nursed until she was three. I did notice that the return of menses coincided with her sleeping "through the night" (i.e. five hour stretch). I chose to wait longer to have another (wanted them 3.5 years apart) but unfortunately life has other plans for me as I had a couple of pregnancy losses last year.


----------



## suziek (Jun 4, 2004)

I just voted. 2 years. But that's because that's what I have and it's working out beautifully for us. I have a happy, healthy bunch of kids who really are getting what they need (most of the time) including wonderful friendships across gender lines and up and down the age range.

I'll get to test out the 3 year diffference soon enough.

That said, there is no ideal and there are tade-offs and benefits to all.

I haven't read the rest of the thread but I will later tonight and I so might be back.


----------



## hookahgirl (May 22, 2005)

I picked 3.5 years, that is the spacing between my two (well 3 years, 4 months but I think that is closer than 3yrs) I LOVE IT!
It was hard for me because DD and DS are total opposites so not only was I parenting a new baby after 3.5 years, but he was NOTHING like she was LOL

But its nice to be able to get a kid out of the car and know they wont dart into traffic if it takes a minute to get the baby out of the car, they can share a bit more, play by themselves ect.

Plus recovery time was easy, I had enough stuff stored up so when I didnt sleep for 6 months







i was ok LOL


----------



## KaylaBeanie (Jan 27, 2009)

For myself, I want my children a minimum of 2 years apart, so I will actively prevent pregnancy for 2 years. It's important that my kids get 2 years of breastmilk, minimum, and I wouldn't want to take the risk of my milk drying up with pregnancy. I figure if finances permitted and my partner and I felt it was time, after 2 years we'd try. Which would mean a minimum of ~3 year difference.

I grew up in a family with big age gaps. My (half) brother is 28, I'm 20 and my sister is 15. Brother was born when our dad and his mom were 20, and he was not planned. They got married, then divorced. My dad soon after married my mom, and they had me and my sister. Incidentally, my brother's mom had 8 more kids, the youngest being 23 years younger than my brother. We three are spaced out so far purely by accident. My mom got pregnant a few years before I was born, because she didn't want big age gaps. She miscarried though, and it took awhile before she and dad decided to try again. Then, they planned on a much smaller age difference with sister and I, but had difficulties conceiving her.

I loved the age gaps. I still do. We're all in different stages of life, so there's no competition and we all get along pretty well, minus the political debates







My brother is married with 2 kids, I'm in college and my sister is in high school. It was great for our parents, because they weren't dealing with multiple toddlers, then multiple pre-teens, then multiple teenagers.


----------



## crunchymamatobe (Jul 8, 2004)

We are going with 3.25 years, so I hope that's ideal! We were aiming for something like 2y9m, but you don't always get to plan these things!

I know a few families with babies 15-19 months apart, and it's hard hard hard work for the mama for the first 18 months or so. In each of these families, once the little one gets to 18-24 months, the siblings start to play together really well. But up until that point, you really have two babies.

I think having such close spacing is "easier" in families where the babies aren't "babied" for very long. Not universally, of course, but we know a lot of families with siblings with that 15-19 month gap or, equally "popular," a 22-24 month gap. In each of these families, the babies aren't breastfed much beyond 6-9 months, early solid foods, are "sleep trained" early, etc. So the older one seems much more "grown up" at age 1 or 1.5 than my toddler who still wakes most nights and breastfed until he was 2y4m.

One of my LLL leaders has three years (35 months) between her oldest two and loves the spacing. The girls are 6 and 9 now and play together a lot. Another leader has teenage boys who were born 3.5 years apart and says they have always been great friends.

A mom I know who grew up in France says that 3-4 year spacing is much more common in France (as opposed to the 2 year spacing that is very common in the UK and the US), and there's never any discussion of "Oh, they won't be friends, they won't play together."

My sister and I are 25 months apart and played and fought in equal measure as children. As teenagers we had nothing but an antagonistic relationship. As adults we are very close.


----------



## LuxPerpetua (Dec 17, 2003)

I voted "other" because I think only childhood is the ideal. Of course, this is my personal belief for our family and within our American culture, in which I think a child has an advantage by having full access to parents' limited time and resources.


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

I voted other.

I'm not even going to consider TTC until DD has had / is doing all of the following:
- 2 years of breastmilk
- Potty learned (daytime at least)
- STTN (and I mean a decent 10 hour stretch of not needing mommy here!) regularly, as in 6 out of 7 nights a week.
- Can play independently for 10 minutes or more
- Able to dress/undress self, to some degree at least
- More verbal (with 1000 words or more and the ability to form sentences)

Some of those things are looking possible in the next year, others may take years. I will wait and if I don't end up having another baby I don't think I'll be too devastated. But I've had a pretty hard time with DD so I'm not gung-ho about going through all that again now with the addition of a high needs toddler/child.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

I think 4 -5 years is good.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KweenKrunch* 
Most mothers are not menstruating, much less having fertile cycles, at 9 months pp (which you would have to be to have your children only 1.5 years apart), unless they are no longer nursing.

http://nfpandmore.org/wordpress/

I EBF and my cycles came back at 8 weeks grrrrr. Same with my SIL.


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

Quote:

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.
I voted other, because we are QF and don't plan at all. But as far as numbers go... (And mind you, I have never weaned in order to ttc.)

Dec. '97 I had one shot of Depo for Ovarian Cysts. That is supposed to last for three months but can take several months for everything to start working again I guess. We conceived our first in September of 99 with no method of bc during that time. So from the end of the three month period until then was about 19 months I believe.

DS was born in 6/00.
DD1 was born 6/02. They are 24 months, minus 2 weeks apart.
DD2 was born 10/04. 28 months apart.
DD3 was born 9/06. 23 months apart.
DD4 was born 12/08. 27 months apart.
???


----------



## suziek (Jun 4, 2004)

I have to say I am starting to feel a little defensive about my decision to space our kids relatively close together (2 yrs., with the exception of this last one who will be 3+ years younger than his brother.)

For the record, I nursed each child well into the subsequent pregancy, and weaned somewhere between 18 snd 20 months. Not a full two years, of course, but they were wonderful, healthy, confident babies who transitioned beautifully into diets rich in a range of nutritious foods, and who each developed his/her own way to be very intimate with their mom that contineu to this day. I don't feel that they were shortchanged.

I did, however, night wean my babies at 8 months, slowly, gently and lovingly. My babies slept through the night shortly thereafter. I, for one, really enjoy a good night's sleep after our full days, and so do my children.

Finally, my children do get plenty of parental love and affection, and also plenty of what I call lateral love--love from each other. The latter is a wonderful thing--the esteem they earn from their siblings is valuable to them, and helps their development as far as I can see. I am lucky enough to be home with my children. We manage to enjoy each other's company AND take time with each child regularly and naturally. I think not having a tv helps--I have more time for the kids than if we spent time watching the tube--and so does homeschooling.

Anyway, maybe I'm just being overly sensitive (7 months pregnant, etc.). I hoep that's the case. Whatever the case, thanks for letting me share my thoughts.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Suziek


----------



## JennTheMomma (Jun 19, 2008)

I love 3 years apart. We only have 1 child, but are TTCing and they will be 3 years apart. If its 2 years but very close to 3, thats fine too.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *suziek* 
I have to say I am starting to feel a little defensive about my decision to space our kids relatively close together (2 yrs., with the exception of this last one who will be 3+ years younger than his brother.)

For the record, I nursed each child well into the subsequent pregancy, and weaned somewhere between 18 snd 20 months. Not a full two years, of course, but they were wonderful, healthy, confident babies who transitioned beautifully into diets rich in a range of nutritious foods, and who each developed his/her own way to be very intimate with their mom that contineu to this day. I don't feel that they were shortchanged.

I did, however, night wean my babies at 8 months, slowly, gently and lovingly. My babies slept through the night shortly thereafter. I, for one, really enjoy a good night's sleep after our full days, and so do my children.

Finally, my children do get plenty of parental love and affection, and also plenty of what I call lateral love--love from each other. The latter is a wonderful thing--the esteem they earn from their siblings is valuable to them, and helps their development as far as I can see. I am lucky enough to be home with my children. We manage to enjoy each other's company AND take time with each child regularly and naturally. I think not having a tv helps--I have more time for the kids than if we spent time watching the tube--and so does homeschooling.

Anyway, maybe I'm just being overly sensitive (7 months pregnant, etc.). I hoep that's the case. Whatever the case, thanks for letting me share my thoughts.

Nice post, suziek


----------



## ~PurityLake~ (Jul 31, 2005)

I voted for 2 year and I have not read the thread.

My girls are only 13.5 months apart, by accident. I voted 2 years as a minimum because my pregnancy with my second daughter disrupted my breastfeeding relationship with my first daughter. She was unable to breastfeed past the age of 8 months. Although she resumed between the ages of 2 and 2.5, it was never a constant for her. My youngest is now 3 years old. If we have more, there would be considerable age difference between the older two, and the younger 1-2. My daughters are extremely bonded with each other and play together ALL. THE. TIME. with pretending and imagination and roughhousing and creation. They remind me of twins. As their mother, it was very hard on my body creating another life when I wasn't finished nourishing the first one. There is only so much a body can give within a small time frame without a chance to recuperate.

So, 2 years would be the ideal for me, or perhaps, a minimum. If I have two more children, as I hope to someday, it would be nice if they are 2-3 years apart. No more, though. My siblings were more than 3 years older/younger than I and we never did anything together. However, my sister who is 14 years younger than I, who I didn't meet until I was 19, is the closest sibling I have, emotionally, even if we only have a few things in common.







:


----------



## suziek (Jun 4, 2004)

Thanks orangefoot and flapjack


----------



## Ericka1999 (Aug 4, 2009)

As for my daughters there 3 yrs apart and yet they are really close and share a common bond.I used to think that a year apart would be good but now I think that it depends.I think that siblings 21 months apart has it benefits like mothers would give them equal attention to both of them at the same time therefore the other not feeling left out or not in the center of the universe.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I think, from my experience that two years would be "ideal". Though we don't intentionally space the children, we are QF.

I have some spacing of 4 years and others at 1.5. I think the closest children are the 1/5-2 year children and the 4 year spaced ones just don't connect as well. Too much "life" inbetween for them to really connect.

And FTR, I EBF for a year+ for almost every baby I have had and I still get pg. I get my cycles, with ovulation, back at 8wks pp, if not sooner (with my earliest being 4-5wks pp).

It is just a bit harder in the very early years, but I really think it is totally worth all the work of close spacing after that.


----------



## clraelle (May 18, 2009)

I have a 12yo DD, 10yo DD, 6yo DS, and 4mo DS.

My 10 year old can relate well with both the 6 yo and the 12 yo and acts very nurturing towards her youngest brother.
My 12 year old finds that her 6 year old brother is annoying and often feels left out, but adores the babe.
My 6 year old wants attention from his oldest sister but doesn't understand that she wont always want to play with him and doesnt care much for youngest brother taking his place as the baby.

So in my family 2 year gaps work well, 4 years works well, 12 years works well, but 6 years doesn't mesh well, they're at too different of stages to "get" each other.

As for my sanity in the mix, I prefer having larger gaps so I'm not worried about losing track of what a toddler might be up to while nursing an infant.

I hope that doesn't sound too confusing.


----------



## dmpmercury (Mar 31, 2008)

I was a nanny before I had kids to several families. I like the dynamics of closely spaced children. In general they do play better and relate than the kids that were spaced farther. I always pictured myself with closely spaced kids since I was little and playing with dolls. It just how I always imagined things.

I wasn't able to get my fertility until after my first child was 1 and I took herbs and cut back on breastfeeding a little. I ended up with a 25 month gap. I liked that gap because my dd was sleeping good and potty trained when my son arrived and she adjusted so good. It was pretty tough on me since my son was a needier baby and my dd was still pretty young.

I want one more child and I still would like them relativly closely spaced but my son ended up a much higher needs infant and still wakes frequently and nurses a ton so I am trying to give it more time this time. I need a little bit more time since I'm sleep deprived and I felt bad about having to cut my dd back. I am thinking of anywhere from 2-3 years for the next one. I hope my fertility will come back. Hopefully some gentle night weaning and herbs will do the trick.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

I honestly don't think it matters.









I am the youngest of four, with 4, 8, and 10 years apart with my siblings. I love all of them to death, and we are pretty close-knit family. Naturally, I played more with my sister who is 4 years older than I am, than with my brother, who is 10 years older than I am. But the fact remains - we never had serious disagreements and all four of us have plenty of warm memories from our childhood. We always entertained ourselves, and I doubt it would have been more different if we were closer in ages. I might have gotten a bit closer with my brother, but honestly, it doesn't matter much now that we are all grown up.

I think the environment, in which siblings are growing up, matters much more than the spacing, as far as quality of relationships goes. If you have a preference to have kids just 1 year apart? That's fine. If you want to try and space the ages a bit more? That's fine. Whatever works for you!









I had to add a story here.... Recently, I went on a trip to see my hometown, and relatives. Someone told me this story about the four of us growing up "There they were, the three older kids playing Scrabble, and Oriole crawling around, messing up the tiles. and the amazing part is, NOT ONE kid got upset with Oriole, all were patient and loving through the whole thing." There... I love my siblings, can't you tell?


----------



## bwylde (Feb 19, 2004)

I voted two years. Right now it's the perfect age as they are wonderful playmates and have been for a few years now (they're 7 and 5 and yes, I know that can't be counted on). I nursed both for nearly 4.5 years and I had my fertility back for both at about 3 months PP, an oddity with constant round the clock nursing of two, I know.


----------



## ~PurityLake~ (Jul 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bwylde* 
....... and I had my fertility back for both at about 3 months PP, an oddity with constant round the clock nursing of two, I know.

Then let me join the oddity group. My fertility was back exactly 8 weeks postpartum each time, breastfeeding around the clock on demand while co sleeping and baby wearing.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Aug 24, 2005)

and it is waaaaaay to close!

i think, for our family, 3-4 years would be more comfortable. i am really just starting to "enjoy" my 3.5 yo dd. she is high-needs, high-spirited and has been since birth. having a sibling 2 years younger was just too soon.


----------



## NicaG (Jun 16, 2006)

I voted 3 years. My kids are closer to 3.5 years apart (we tried for 3 year spacing but then I miscarried). So far it's working out well. I like that my older ds had a little independence (able to play by himself, able to use the toilet, able to be patient for a few minutes) by the time dd was born. It was nice to have ds in preschool a few mornings so I could have some one-on-one time with the baby. I do sometimes wish they were closer together, to be able to play better together. But ds really loves playing with the baby and he's very protective of her. I don't think I'm the kind of person who would do well with 2 kids really close together. I think it would sort of overwhelm me. Three and a half years has been pretty easy spacing.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NicaG* 
I do sometimes wish they were closer together, to be able to play better together.

This will come later, don't worry. I have this gap between mine and once the youngest was up on his or her feet they were playing together. When one is six and the other is almost 3 there is plenty they can do together and this only increases the older they get. Now that my eldest is 16 and his next sibling is 12 and a half they are doing more things apart but for years they were best buddies in everything.


----------



## katiesk (Nov 6, 2007)

for me, i anticipate wanting at least five - if not six or seven - years between dd and any future babies. i'm pretty sure that i'll want to adopt a kid by then. probably no more biological children though, i would prefer to adopt. (although i LOVED pregnancy and childbirth)

dd is 16 months and things are so easy. she sleeps with me, nurses alot, naps during the day, comes to work with me, hangs out happily in her sling...everything is so unbelievably easy. i can't imagine changing that. i feel like with a pregnancy or a baby right now, i would be overwhelmed, tired, out of a job that i can bring my dd along to...etc. but most of all, i'm afraid i would enjoy dd less. i would have so much more to think about, much less time in which to get things done, no time for myself, etc. and i want to keep nursing for as long as dd wants to, and i would be nervous about my supply during pregnancy. and i want dd to be a baby for as long as she needs to, you know? i like giving her my undivided attention.

anyway, i am absolutely positive of this for myself, but obviously, many other people feel much differently!


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

NicaG said:


> I do sometimes wish they were closer together, to be able to play better together. /QUOTE]
> 
> It's not just the spacing, it's the personalities. Joy and Erica never had anything in common until Erica had her baby. So even though they were ony 2 1/2 years apart, they never played together. It was Erica and Angela, with a 4 year gap, that played together.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *D'sMama* 
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.

My original plan was to have my first (got him _exactly_ on schedule), then my second 18-24 months later. Then, when #2 was about 2.5 or 3, I was going to have two more, with the same spacing as the first two.

When ds1 was 10 months old, I started ttc. When he was 3.5, I finally got pregnant...and miscarried at 7-8 weeks gestation. About six months later, I got pregnant again...and miscarried at 12 weeks gestation. I ttc again for a while, and then my ex and I completely stopped having sex, and I met dh. After I split up with my ex, dh visited Vancouver. We were going to be platonic. Long story short - when he went home, I was pregnant - an "ooops"! At that point, ds1 was 7, and I didn't care how I got the baby, I was just glad I was having one. I again miscarried at 12 weeks gestation.

So...when ds1 was 10, dh and I finally had dd1 (on our first attempt to conceive - we waited until he'd moved here, and my divorce paperwork was finalized). I was thrilled to finally have my second baby, and we decided to ttc again. I got pregnant on our first attempt and we had ds2.

After some discussion, we decided we'd go ahead and try for my fourth baby, as I'd always wanted. (DH had reservations, because I'd had three unwanted c-sections, and they'd caused me a LOT of emotional trauma...he was really unsure about going through that again.) Once again, I conceived on our first attempt (my fertility issues appear to have had a lot more to do with my ex than with me, yk?), but our fourth baby, my planned HBA3C, was stillborn. So, we tried again. This time, it took us 3 months to conceive, and dd2 was born 12 days after my 41st birthday. (She's 46 days old today.)

I'm not a planner, anymore. I didn't expect _anything_ on my reproductive journey to go the way it did...nothing at all. I've got my four kids, but I'm almost 10 years older than I'd "planned", and the spacing is _completely_ hooped.

Is it ideal? I have no idea...but it's working. DS1 is almost like a young uncle to his younger siblings. DD1 and ds2 are very close, and even though they fight, they love and like each other a lot. DD2 is the adored baby of the family, and the other kids all love her. I'm blessed. This is nothing like what I thought I wanted or what I planned for, but I wouldn't trade it for the world.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bwylde* 
I nursed both for nearly 4.5 years and I had my fertility back for both at about 3 months PP, an oddity with constant round the clock nursing of two, I know.

I weaned ds1 at 10 months (one of the few decisions I made with ds1 that I'd change, if I could). I didn't get my periods back until then with him, even though he'd started other foods at 4 months.

With dd1, I got my period back at just under 4 months post-partum, despite exclusive nursing.

With ds2, it took...a year, I think?...to get my period back - exclusive nursing to 6 months, roughly, and nursed him to 27 months.

It seems to be all over the map for me.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

really i think anything between 2 and 4 is ideal. that seems like a really natrual pace to me.

MIne are all natrually spaced and there is 3 1/2 and 2 1/2 years between them. I would be stressing at anything less that 2 1/2 but it still would probably be just fine in the end.


----------



## Julchen31 (Mar 19, 2011)

2 years


----------

