next baby when? advice please
|
|
Thread rating:  |
thekobes@comcast.net - 15 Dec 2004 01:41 GMT Hello,
I'm a long-time lurker, first time poster. I've gotten alot of great advice from this list over the past 16 months, so I thought I'd run this one by you guys.
For those of you who had twins as your first children, when did you think you were ready (or when did you decide) to have your next child?
DH and I have talked about this briefly, but want to get some real-life advice/data before we jump in. I know it's different for everyone, but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Our boys are 16 months now.
Thanks,
Mimi mom to Will & JC 7-21-03
Nick Theodorakis - 15 Dec 2004 02:20 GMT >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >advice/data before we jump in. I know it's different for everyone, but >I'd like to hear your opinions. My dw said she wanted to not be pregnant for two years before trying for another. So our singleton was born 2 years and nine months after the twins.
Nick
 Signature Nick Theodorakis nick_theodorakis@hotmail.com contact form: http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
H Schinske - 15 Dec 2004 02:26 GMT >For those of you who had twins as your first children, when did you >think you were ready (or when did you decide) to have your next child? We had ours about four years apart, which worked pretty well -- there was some time for me to spend with the new baby one-on-one (a new experience!!!) while the girls were in preschool. If we'd had twins again (a definite possibility, as the girls were fraternal and spontaneously conceived), it would have been do-able, I suppose.
--Helen
Cindy Senger - 15 Dec 2004 19:35 GMT Ours are also four years apart and I feel like our timing was good. Like Helen, I enjoyed some one-on-one time with Jenna while my "big girls" were in preschool. Now they are in K and it seems so easy having just one toddler to look after-- though I don't really know if that's a "not twins" thing or more of an experienced mom thing. The only real downside is that I feel like I'm cheating A&A a bit out of "extra" activities (like ballet, sports, etc.) right now because it's still hard to take Jenna places and keep her entertained. But, by this time next year, I think a lot of that will be easier-- Jenna will be 2.5. It was also nice to have potty training far behind and have A&A able to entertain themselves somewhat-- as well as feeling like they could understand that sometimes my hands were full with the baby and they had to wait a minute. They were also able to understand how to hold and play with a baby really well at four.
-Cindy (mom to Ashlyn and Allyson 6/99 and Jenna 6/03)
>>For those of you who had twins as your first children, when did you >>think you were ready (or when did you decide) to have your next child? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >--Helen KimandJuan - 15 Dec 2004 20:01 GMT When we decided to start trying around August... I knew I wanted to be pregnant in time to have the baby by the Sept 1st cut off for school. The girls would be close to three and a little more independent and hopefully potty trained. It was all very idealistic. Up until this summer though, I wouldn't have even considered getting pregnant. It was too tough keeping up after E+A.
~Kimberly Mommy to Alexis Iliana 07/17/99 and Emma Elidia & Aislyn Gabriela 10/01/02 come see us... http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/aislynemma/
multimom4 - 15 Dec 2004 23:48 GMT Our fourth came 4.5 years after the triplets. It made life easier at first that the older ones were not poking her in the eye, hitting her with blocks, etc, although we still had to be careful that they didn't crush her with their love. It also helped that they could dress and feed themselves and were potty trained. It was also nice that they were in school and I had time with the baby, as Cindy said.
As time goes on, however, I am somewhat regretting it (not that we had any real say in the gap at all, it just happened that way for various reasons). The "easiness" of the first, say, two years, is not a lot compared to the difficulties we are running into now and which will continue for the rest of their lives in various ways.
-- Apart from when Holly is in K and 1, I will *never* have the 4 of them in the same school again, so I will be meeting four buses or running from school to school twice a day for most of the next 10 years. -- By the time Holly is old enough for the older kids' current activities, they will have outgrown them, so we shall (again) never benefit from having them all in the same activity at once (swim team and swim or ski lessons in particular, but it would prob. be the same if the girls were into gym, horses, soccer etc etc etc). -- Holly gets cheated on activities because as I encourage the older kids to diversify from each other there just isn't time for me to get everyone everywhere they need to be. I worry that if one of the older kids gets really "into" something (e.g. needs to go to several practices a week) then Holly and the others will be even more cheated down the road. Of course I suppose this is the same whatever the age gap -- it's more of a "why did we have 4?" issue. -- Similarly, I would have liked to put them into private school but with 4 to pay for -- ha ha. -- Holly will still have four long years of school to finish by the time the older ones go to college (fingers crossed, touch wood, etc.) -- I expect she will be very lonely when they leave. I remember this experience myself (I had two years left) and those were a tough couple of years. -- OTOH, as a youngest child whose older sisters mocked, abused and made fun of me intensively ... I also wonder whether she may suffer that, perhaps even worse than I did, when they are "adolescents" and she is still "just a baby". -- Holly desperately wants to "keep up" with her siblings but simply can't in many ways, which is frustrating for her. It's good that she learned to climb up and get into her car seat at a very young age so she could be like them. OTOH, we are finding that for example just coloring while the others do their homework is no longer satisfying to her but since she can't manage letters (and isn't happy trying) we are experiencing regular meltdowns at the moment -- and over many other things like this. -- My age -- I wish for Holly's sake that I had been a bit younger when she was born. I had a lot more energy when EHC came along than I do now, 8 years later.
A girlfriend of mine had triplets and then her fourth one is only 22 months behind. Mayhem at first (she "solved" that with grandma visits and lots of babysitters so that she could get breaks and she could also take some but not all of them out at once) but now she is reaping the benefits of having them all in grade school together (three in 2nd, one in K). They are doing their swim, gym and ski lessons together. They all went to -- and enjoyed -- the same camps last summer. They were all on the "junior" (8 and under) swim team together. They all learned to inline skate at the same time, etc etc etc. When the older kids started to get homework, the younger was of an age to be able to do some real letters and feel big about it.
Of course the grass is always greener -- I guess any degree of separation has its pros and cons, but it seems to me that 4.5 is a bit too much.
Just a few thoughts.
--Janet Elliot, Hanna, Connor (10/21/96) and Holly (4/4/01)
> Ours are also four years apart and I feel like our timing was good. Like > Helen, I enjoyed some one-on-one time with Jenna while my "big girls" were in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > >--Helen H Schinske - 16 Dec 2004 02:14 GMT >The "easiness" of the first, say, two years, is not a lot compared to the >difficulties we are running into now and which will continue for the rest of >their lives in various ways. I don't know about the rest of their lives. I am the youngest of six, with the next closest sibling nearly four years older, and it seems to me that since we've been grown up we've all been essentially the same age. I'm better friends now with several siblings than I probably was growing up.
--Helen
multimom4 - 17 Dec 2004 22:26 GMT It's a strong statement, I agree -- but in our 40s my sisters still treat me like I'm 13 and they're the only ones who are all grown up, so it's certainly not impossible.
--Janet Elliot, Hanna, Connor (10/21/96) and Holly (4/4/01)
> >The "easiness" of the first, say, two years, is not a lot compared to the > >difficulties we are running into now and which will continue for the rest of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > --Helen H Schinske - 18 Dec 2004 19:43 GMT >It's a strong statement, I agree -- but in our 40s my sisters still treat me >like I'm 13 and they're the only ones who are all grown up, so it's >certainly not impossible. Sounds to me as though they're the ones who aren't so grown-up, then :-) I expect it would have been much the same even if you'd all been closer in age. For that matter, my daughters currently treat each other much worse than they treat their little brother.
My siblings sometimes kid around about not being used to the idea that I can drive, and what not, and I get stuff like being introduced as "my little sister," but basically it's not enough to be any problem, just a little family joke kind of thing.
--Helen
Megan Byrne - 16 Dec 2004 03:50 GMT I coouldn't even imagine thinking about another baby with 16 mo. old twins! Our plan is to try again when our twins are 4-5, they are 2 now. I really want to give them the one on one that they need and are entitled to. I know that they are not ready to share Mommy yet!
~Megan~ "Mama" to twins, Aidan & Alexis
Paula Johnson - 15 Dec 2004 23:35 GMT >For those of you who had twins as your first children, when did you >think you were ready (or when did you decide) to have your next child? Well, we weren't planning on a next child, but one is on the way anyway :-), and my twins will be about 26-27 months old. I feel like that is too close and I'm very scared about it, to be perfectly honest.
If we had planned on another, I think I would have wanted a 3-4 year age difference, ideally. You have to do what feels right for you, though. Good luck!
Paula
Andrea - 19 Dec 2004 00:42 GMT >Well, we weren't planning on a next child, but one is on the way >anyway :-), and my twins will be about 26-27 months old. I feel like >that is too close and I'm very scared about it, to be perfectly >honest. Congratulations Paula! This announcement deserves it's own post. :)
Andrea twin girls-Jordan & Madison 3/22/00
Jack H. - 16 Dec 2004 17:21 GMT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Our boys are 16 months now. mine are 2 years and 3 months and the thought hasn't come up yet.
> Thanks, > > Mimi > mom to Will & JC 7-21-03 Jack Abigail and Jonathan 9-10-02
berlioz3 - 18 Dec 2004 04:34 GMT <thekobes@comcast.net> wrote in message
> For those of you who had twins as your first children, when did you > think you were ready (or when did you decide) to have your next child? Hi Mimi,
I have not posted here in, oh my, I forget how long, lol, but you lured me out. ;-) I don't exactly quailfy w/ your request, but I wanted to add my 2cents, too.
It took me quite a few years to have my oldest child (now almost 9). The doctors told me not to wait too long to come back in if we wanted to try again. (infertility issues). Ok, so I took them seriously...and was expecting the girls when he was 10 months old. I might not have actually planned them quite that close, but I wasn't complaining. Now, there we were w/ a 19 month old and newborn twins and my husband can't wait to try again. Okkaayyy....I seriously did not know how I felt, until right as my girls were turning two. One day I just knew I did want to try again. We started trying pretty much right away at that point and the boys came not quite two years later. At this point Nicholas was almost 5 1/2 and his sisters almost 4. For us this has been pretty ideal, I think.
Anyway, I guess my point in sharing is that I think having a plan is truly great, but I also really think you'll have a *feeling* when it's the right time. :-)
Good Luck whatever you decide! Beth Nicholas 12/95 Samantha & Alexandra 7/97 Zachary & Gabriel 5/01
|
|
|