If you have 4+ children

[Anonymous]

Can you afford college, activities and all the needs of the one with SN?

[Anonymous]

Your kids are older. I say go for it.

I only have 3 but my older kids were in kindergarten and 2nd grade when third was born. I focus on the baby when older kids are in school. When big kids are home, I focus on them. I would imagine it would be similar with 4 kids.

[Anonymous]

We have four, two years apart. It's working really well. I suppose I would like more time with each, but the increased number of built-in playmates has helped a lot.

Survey data suggests that parents of four or more are less stressed out than parents of three, but on the other hand the confounder is, of course, that parents who find three a breeze are more likely to continue on to higher numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Definitely NOT. Three is a perfect number of kids. Four is a lot. You won’t be able to devote the time you want to each kids. It will get harder when you have to take them to practices and games. You will have games happening at the same time. What happens when three events coalesce on the same day at the same time? You have to choose what to do. Four kids is EXPENSIVE. Think college... you will have to pay tuition for 4 colleges. If your kid needs therapy, most psychologists around here don’t take insurance. T can cost you $200 a week per child. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The practice/game conflicts happen at three kids though. Once you are outnumbered, it becomes an issue either way. Agree though about the cost concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have four, two years apart. It's working really well. I suppose I would like more time with each, but the increased number of built-in playmates has helped a lot.

Survey data suggests that parents of four or more are less stressed out than parents of three, but on the other hand the confounder is, of course, that parents who find three a breeze are more likely to continue on to higher numbers.

I've read that parents of 3 are trying to pretend they aren't a big family, whereas once you have 4, you accept it and embrace it. That makes a lot of sense to me. (I have 3.)

[Anonymous]

I love having four kids - we have so much fun together. Yes, life is crazy and chaotic but my kids also have each other in addition to their parents. It is truly amazing seeing our oldest daughter give her younger sister advice about tampons, friends, teachers, etc. I think any family just gets used to what you have whether it's an only child or a large family so I really don't think you can go wrong (unless you have so many kids that you can't properly care for them).

[Anonymous]

I have two. Maybe they are just sensitive (ok, almost certainly they are) but they always seem to feel shortchanged. I would have liked a third but temperamentally for us it made sense to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you feel like you’re able to fully give your time to each? I feel like I have just enough to give my 3, but we have a frozen embryo that I can’t sign off on destroying or giving away. I wouldn’t mind having a 4th, except for feeling like it was taking away something from the others. If it matters, they’re currently 10, 7, and just turned 4 and I’m a SAHM.

I have 3 and WOHM full time, as does DH. I don't know what it means to "fully give your time," but we probably don't do it. My parents had two kids, and I'm pretty sure they didn't do that either. But I had a happy childhood and my kids appear to be doing well too.

If you're doing well with 3 and you and your husband both genuinely want a 4th, then your 4 kids will probably do just fine. But don't feel obligated to have a 4th just to salvage a frozen embryo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would agree with the previous poster. You can have a large family as long as none of them need a ton of attention (special needs, learning issues, social issues, etc.). If any of them need a lot of one on one time, chances are you will hit a limit on what you can do. Its also a lot easier when they get older, so large age gaps make a big difference.

On the flip side I don't know many families of 3+ that don't have significant health issues for at least one child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would agree with the previous poster. You can have a large family as long as none of them need a ton of attention (special needs, learning issues, social issues, etc.). If any of them need a lot of one on one time, chances are you will hit a limit on what you can do. Its also a lot easier when they get older, so large age gaps make a big difference.

On the flip side I don't know many families of 3+ that don't have significant health issues for at least one child.

Really? I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love having four kids - we have so much fun together. Yes, life is crazy and chaotic but my kids also have each other in addition to their parents. It is truly amazing seeing our oldest daughter give her younger sister advice about tampons, friends, teachers, etc. I think any family just gets used to what you have whether it's an only child or a large family so I really don't think you can go wrong (unless you have so many kids that you can't properly care for them).

I agree with this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. I was talking about love languages with the kids a couple years ago and one of them said it makes her feel loved when she comes home and smells food cooking. One feels loved when I put her clean shirts in rainbow order. So maybe sometimes I don't have time for an hour-long talk about the drama of sixth grade but I can have something baking in the oven when she comes home. It takes two seconds to put a note near the front door that says, "Meredith, INHALE!"

Also, a lot of parents think that spending time has to be some super fun/expensive outting. But really, we just spend time doing errands together and that's enough. One of my kids will sit on the counter and talk to me as I clean up from dinner. One will lean in the doorway watching me put on makeup while we chat.

Be open to different opportunities.

Arranging shirts is not 1-1 time.

It can be, but that’s irrelevant because that’s not what PP said. Quit looking for things to criticize others for. She said it’s something she does that her kid notices and makes her feel happy.

[Anonymous]

I have 4 and work full time (flexible job though), and like many of the pps, I think it works for us because the kids are spaced out. My oldest is 12, the others are 7 and 3.5, and 6 mo. I do wish I had more time with each kid, but I felt that way with 3 and even 2, and 4 doesn’t seem much worse. The biggest sacrifice is limited/no time for myself, but I had already given that up with 3. We do have family nearby which helps so, so much - the grandparents often take 1 or 2 kids and that lets me spend 1-1 time while the baby or 3 year old naps, or while an older kid is at an activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have four, two years apart. It's working really well. I suppose I would like more time with each, but the increased number of built-in playmates has helped a lot.

Survey data suggests that parents of four or more are less stressed out than parents of three, but on the other hand the confounder is, of course, that parents who find three a breeze are more likely to continue on to higher numbers.

I've read that parents of 3 are trying to pretend they aren't a big family, whereas once you have 4, you accept it and embrace it. That makes a lot of sense to me. (I have 3.)

NP, and my theory is that the third was unplanned for many, but a fourth, much less so. We know SO many families with an unplanned third, and many are stressed—probably because they’re trying to stay a small family. We wanted three, have three, and embrace the chaos (mostly). Four would be a bridge too far for us, mostly because neither of us could quit our jobs and we have no family support. If we’d started earlier and I (the mom) could stay home, we might have gone for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would agree with the previous poster. You can have a large family as long as none of them need a ton of attention (special needs, learning issues, social issues, etc.). If any of them need a lot of one on one time, chances are you will hit a limit on what you can do. Its also a lot easier when they get older, so large age gaps make a big difference.

On the flip side I don't know many families of 3+ that don't have significant health issues for at least one child.

Really? I do.

I know lots of families with 3+ kids with no health issues. I think that’s probably why they were able to have a large family.

The people I know with a child with health problems stopped at 1 or 2.