Anyone have children VERY close together? Keeping them close to be done faster?

[MyKzooFamily]

We have a 3.5 year old, and a 6 week old. We ideally would love a big family (for us, that is 4 kids). My Mom had 7 and I just don't see that in our future. But never say 'never'.

Since we have a 3.5 year gap, I feel like the space is too much.. for DS and for me. DS may eventually play with DD, when DD gets bigger and older. But I would have loved an 18-24 month gap like my sisters and I are.

The ONE thing that is really bothering me.. is starting the baby phase ALL. OVER. AGAIN. I really feel like for my sanity, instead of 'waiting' for DD to get older and more independent and then starting over again, I should have them close together. That way I can 'stay' in the baby phase, finish our family, and be done. I feel like when the baby finally becomes more independent, I feel more 'free'. And then when I'm back at square 1 with a baby again, it's exhausting.

I would rather have a few years being stuck in the 'baby phase' and then have the kids all get older together.

Did anyone else feel this way? Or really like shorter gaps in between?

[anniekins1488]

I do feel that way. I'm exhausted all the time now, but I think having a bigger gap between our girls would be even harder. Although a very large gap is something else completely different. Between us, my DH and I have 5 DDs! 2 are my DSDs and they are 21 and almost 19, and together we have our 33 month old, our 17 month old, and we're having our 3rd DD together on May 10th by c/s!

That puts the young ones at 15 months between 1 and 2, and 18 months between 2 and 3.

Oh, and we just found out we're going to be grandparents this fall!!! That one hasn't quite sunken in yet.... I keep thinking that it'll be weird being called Mommy and Grandma at the same time by the same (almost) aged children .

Anyway, I've loved not having to really get rid of any baby stuff yet, and not leaving the "baby phase" before the next LO is here. I would imagine starting all over again with everything newbie would be much more difficult. We're 90% certain that our family is now complete, but if we do welcome another LO I would love to keep the distance between our youngest and the potential newbie at 18-24 months max.

[BrownCowMama]

My first two boys are 13 months apart, 22 months between 2nd and 3rd. Yes, it's so exhausting...everyone can be teething at the same time...potty training at the same time/..same stages, but I LOVE it! They are all close and best friends! There's definately advantages to having them close!

[MyKzooFamily]

I remember a mom telling me it was a horrible idea to have them close. She had 2 children that were 17-18 months apart, and they were both sick, and it was awful. We are going through the same thing this weekend. My 3 year old AND 6 week old are sick, and so am I. It's just as hard (if not harder) with the age gap. The baby just feels awful and wants to be held, and she needs a bath after every time she throws up. DS needs me there when he throws up so we get it in a bowl or the potty, and then wants to be held. It's not any easier because they are farther apart!!

[anniekins1488]

Originally Posted by MyKzooFamily I remember a mom telling me it was a horrible idea to have them close. She had 2 children that were 17-18 months apart, and they were both sick, and it was awful. We are going through the same thing this weekend. My 3 year old AND 6 week old are sick, and so am I. It's just as hard (if not harder) with the age gap. The baby just feels awful and wants to be held, and she needs a bath after every time she throws up. DS needs me there when he throws up so we get it in a bowl or the potty, and then wants to be held. It's not any easier because they are farther apart!!

I've been through this . The day after Christmas we all had a really nasty strain of Norovirus. I was hospitalized for 2.5 days (because I was so dehydrated and also pregnant) but then my DH and my then 29 month old and 13 month old DDs got it so I had to check myself out AMA to take care of all of them! I just tried to keep DH hydrated and checked on him a lot, and spent the next 48 hours between the couch with both DDs and a LOT of towels, and the bath. That way DD1 could snuggle up next to me and feel comforted and DD2 could be held.

No, I don't believe it would be any easier at all if they were further apart in age. If anything, it'd be more difficult IMO! When you have more than once child, chances are they'll be sick at the same time more often than not. That's hard no matter what their ages! I believe there are more advantages than disadvantages to having LOs close in age. Then again, I'm biased.

[doodah]

I will have four kids come fall and the spacing between each is 20 to 22 months. Very close for four kids, one after another. There are definite pros to it but just as many cons. I know you feel that the large age gap is just as hard as the smaller age gap and sometimes thats true but many other times, not so much. When you have this many kids this young, kids is almost all you have time to do. All day, all night, diapers, crying, playing, feeding, etc, etc. There are less and less breaks because with multiple young ones, they all need you as much whereas now, the 3 year old really doesnt need you right now all the time like an infant would. I am not trying to dissuade you at all, just pointing out that the grass is not always greener on the other side. Since your first spacing is already decided, the best thing to do is just enjoy the positives and try not to focus on the "what ifs" so much. If you are prepared to jump into 24/7 baby world, go for the second when the infant is around a year but when in doubt, wait. There is no perfect spacing because they all have their fair share of pros and cons.

[MyKzooFamily]

I definitely agree with the "when in doubt wait", too. We definitely don't regret (as much as I like to think we do) our 3 year gap. We were able to get through the first 3 years without another infant to worry about, and we really needed to figure out how to be good parents. Even now, it's harder with 2, and with an infant. I can't imagine having DD any earlier than we did. DS fully potty trained right before DD came along, and I can't imagine trying to potty train with an infant.

The other part is with me working, I could never afford 3-4 in daycare. So the spacing WOULD work so that I would only have 2 in daycare at a time. We'll see. I guess it will just depend on how we're feeling when the time comes.

[weesej]

Here are my spacings 13M, 2 1/2 years (miscarriage between), 14m, 17m, 15m, 16m, 21m....and currently have a 17 m old and am not pregnant......the longest space between pregnancies I have had since I was 18!!!! by 4 months (But I'm awfully suspicous this month) In any case The harder adjustments were the one further apart. Especially having older children, i'd say go for having them close.

BTW did you notice I hit every spacing less than 18 months other than 12m and under....not going there!

[MyKzooFamily]

Originally Posted by weesej BTW did you notice I hit every spacing less than 18 months other than 12m and under....not going there!

I have two surro-daughters that I carried for another family, thus our spacing. The gaps between my (4) are: 17m, 12m, 11m. The birthdays are: 9/2008, 4/2010, 4/2011, 3/2012.

So I know my body is capable. They were all full term, healthy pregnancies. I just don't know how I will do with babies that I take home and care for. My surro-babies left at a few days old, and I went right back to sleeping through the night.

DS started sleeping through the night at 12-13 months old, so maybe we will talk about spacing in a few months, see where we are at.

[SaraElise]

Our spacing are 13 months and 27 months, and I don't think I would like a much bigger gap than that (though we're approaching the time where I would have to be pregnant and still be in that range )

The 13 months apart was rough that first year, I don't think I personally could have done that spacing back to back, but I was more than ready for our third when she came.

We're definitely in the "have them close together and get it over with" camp. And want to be able to have our kids, then move on to the next stage of life. I don't think there is any right or wrong way, my husband is one of 10 and his youngest brother is 19 years younger than he is. It works great for his parents, but we knew we didn't want to be in and out of the baby stage for 20 years.

The temperament of the kids makes a huge difference too. My second was (and still is at 3.5) very strong willed and high needs, it would have been rough to have another baby so close after him, since he really needed more attention for a long time. But my 1st and 3rd were so easy going and laid back, it wasn't a problem at all.