2 or 3 year age gap- which is better for the KID?

[Anonymous]

Most dcum threads on this focus on which is better and more convenient for the parents (easier to bring kids to similar activities and schools. they can play together, get out of baby years fast) but which is better for the kid? I can’t see any argument in favor of 2 years there- 3 years gives you more one on one time with the first kid and more time for the body to recover and produce a healthy baby between pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

2

[Anonymous]

you are overthinking this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you are overthinking this.

Agree! It is different for every family what time is optimal.
Some kids love having a sibling close in age. Others are jealous over it.

[Anonymous]

Who can know? It’s completely dependent on the KIDS involved.

[Anonymous]

Most siblings we know range from a little less than 2 years to a little more than 3. I don’t see any difference. Mine are 2y 3mo apart and they play together and enjoy many of the same things.

[Anonymous]

3

[Anonymous]

I say 3. That is still close enough in age to play together. I have 3 all about 2.5 years apart, and I do feel bad about foisting a baby on a 2 yo. (Don’t know why I did it twice haha…). I think 2 yo’s are still babies who need their moms, but 3 yo’s are more ready to explore and separate from mom a little. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, but that’s my general feeling.

[Anonymous]

Definitely 3 - even 4. They are close enough to play but different in ages enough not to constantly compare choices and accomplishments - younger kid gets to define themselves, not define in comparison to other kid.

[Anonymous]

Psychologist here and the research says 3 years is optimal.

[Anonymous]

Literally does not matter at all.

As someone who experienced secondary infertility I strongly urge you not to get attached to any particular spacing.

[Anonymous]

It’s easier for a 3 yo to understand needing to share his/her parents, needs of the baby, etc. than for a 2 yo. It’s even easier for a 4 yo. But any gap will work out in the end.

[Anonymous]

I think 3 would be ideal so they can play together but still be in different enough stages of life that they’re not constantly grown together. That’s what we aimed for, but got 4.5 due to some infertility issues. However, we love 4.5! Older child is a girl who absolutely worships younger DS, who adores her in turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 3 would be ideal so they can play together but still be in different enough stages of life that they’re not constantly grown together. That’s what we aimed for, but got 4.5 due to some infertility issues. However, we love 4.5! Older child is a girl who absolutely worships younger DS, who adores her in turn.

*thrown together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most dcum threads on this focus on which is better and more convenient for the parents (easier to bring kids to similar activities and schools. they can play together, get out of baby years fast) but which is better for the kid? I can’t see any argument in favor of 2 years there- 3 years gives you more one on one time with the first kid and more time for the body to recover and produce a healthy baby between pregnancies.

I have one 2 year gap and one 3 year gap (I have three kids), and they both worked well. Sibling jealousy has been minimal and mostly when they were older.

When in doubt, though, spread out the college tuitions and daycare payments.