Going from 2 to 3 children

horselala

Hi, for those of you with 3 or more how did you find the change from 2 to 3 children? Thinking of going again, one is 3 and other is 18 months at the mo.

Did you find 1 to 2, or 2 to 3 a bigger adjustment?

Comments appreciated.

RedXIV

What I found with our lot, we've a 7yr old and 2 under 2 is that we depend on the 7yr old more and more. He's brilliant with the kids and while we only had a few months between 2 and 3, him stepping up made enough of a difference to make our lives easier

Moonbeam

I think the biggest difference is having to get a bigger car.

professore

Everything out there is based on 2 adults and 2 children. Expect to pay way more for everything tagged "family". Otherwise it's not as big a change as 0 to 1 or even 1 to 2.

scholar007

Moonbeam wrote: »

I think the biggest difference is having to get a bigger car.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/limerick-s-serinna-in-despair-over-home-for-kids-1-3764536

A bigger car? - No way - Its having to get a bigger house! After reading the above article, I'm thinking of getting the missus to give up work and blast out a load of sprogs and I'll give up work as well and we will go on the social and get the council to pay the mortgage and then when we grow too big for our current chateau, we will ask the council for a bigger one.

samina

My experience was, I have 3 That are older than yours, but the biggest difference in our family was financially. There is a 6 year gap between our second and third and we had settled into a routine with money. The third one came along and it was quite hard to adjust for the older ones as spare money was split three ways rather than two. It may not seem much but it had a big impact on how the household and things were a lot tighter.
Also as was said families are 2 + 2 so outings and holidays cost more.
The youngest of the two found it hard to find his place in the family too and I think still does.

seamus

According to my parents, every extra child after the second one is far less effort; "Just another couple of spuds in the pot".

I was the fourth (of four) and my Dad has always remarked that raising me was practically effortless as he already had 3 anyway.

Moonbeam

I think that warrants a thread of its own and is slightly off topic.

scholar007

Moonbeam wrote: »

I think that warrants a thread of its own and is slightly off topic.

There are already a couple of threads in other fora about this but I really think it is relevant (even though I was a bit flippant earlier) and shows that there is another side to increasing the number of children in a family.

cbyrd

3's not a bother it's the 4th that's all the work

yoda2001

I found having no 3 was a big change for our house. My first 2 children were careful and tidy and then this tearaway little boy arrived. He pulls out presses, empties out toys for the sake of it. He cannot let anything with a cable or a phone alone. It is such a change.

My eldest is 10 and I suppose I am getting older and haven't as much patience/energy as I had 10 years ago.

The novelty of having nieces and nephews has worn off for the family. The grannies are 10 years older so I find that any support that was there for my 1st child has disappeared.

Having 3 children, I don't go visiting as much. I think people wouldn't want to see me coming with 3!

I didn't expect it to be such a change but I wouldn't say it's "just a few more spuds in the pot"!

Just editing to say I wouldn't give him back for anything!

unkel

We found it a big change going from 2 to 3. A lot more hectic. Perhaps it is because by definition, no child can have the undivided attention of a parent anymore at all times (3 kids, 2 parents)

That was all emotionally / physically though. No particular strain on the finances - same house, same large car (not an MPV) and a family meal only costs a euro or two more in total

It was not my choice to go no 3 to start, but I am very happy we did

eviltwin

I think the age your kids are when additional children come along is something to be taken into consideration.

unkel

Good point. In the traditional large family, the older children all helped out.

The age difference between our eldest and our youngest child was only 4 years and 2 months. Not a lot to make a difference in how the eldest could help

campo

seamus wrote: »

According to my parents, every extra child after the second one is far less effort; "Just another couple of spuds in the pot".

I was the fourth (of four) and my Dad has always remarked that raising me was practically effortless as he already had 3 anyway.

I would agree with the above I now have a 12yr old, 7yr ld and 10 month old and have to be honest when the baby came along it all came flowing back to me like a tidal wave but was much easier to handle this time as I knew what to expect like night feeds etc, we also plan to go again next year so the baby will have some company growing up

Quality

Personally I would give yourself a little more time to enjoy the two you have before throwing a third pregnancy and child into the equation.

My 3 are now, 12,6 and 3. My first two kids were easy going and a pleasure, the baby is hard work! .

I got cocky and thought sure this is easy after being spoilt with the first two. Then no 3 came along and as much as I love him with all my heart, he wore me out.

Seriously give your self a little time to enjoy the other two.

clappyhappy

Personally I would recommend having a third. I have two cousins and one of them was saying to me that it can be very lonely with just two, she said that if they had a fight they had no one else to talk to. I have 3 myself, 7,4 & 2and a half, its not really much of change but as said before no3 is so much more destructive, we call him hurricane Hugo, once he has been in a room its like a hurricane has been through it. But he is so lovable and I do let him get away with more :-)

samina

seamus wrote: »

According to my parents, every extra child after the second one is far less effort; "Just another couple of spuds in the pot".

That was the case before the days of voluntary contributions in school, after school activities and schools taking kids on expensive trips abroad and people used to pass along children's clothes that they had outgrown etc it's so much more expensive to raise a child now even to when my eldest was born. God I sound old

branners69

We went from 2 to 4 when the twin boys arrived. They are turning one in May so we have 4 aged five and under, the chaos has to be seen to be believed but I wouldnt change it for the world!!!

Going from 1 to 2 was tougher than going from 2 to 4!!!

lynski

my 3 are 5, 3 and 14mths (b,g,b) and it is the perfect number for us. The move from 1 to 2 was harder then the move from 2 to 3 but we lost a lot more freedom to move with the third. it takes 30 minutes to get out of the house, harder to do shopping with 3, and mealtimes are like a zoo sometimes.
A lot harder to get babysitters, a few hours ok but a weekend away is a long way off.
I can't imagine doing this if i was not breastfeeding as it makes it so easy to feed and have a free hand and the lack of prep time or clean-up time is useful. the downside is that it is harder to get a break.

I do think that 3 is a great number - there is 3 in my family and when my dad got sick and passed away last year it was so apparent that the extra support was vital. I think if there was only 1 or 2 the stress would have been insurmountable.