Please let me shamelessly brag here: I am so happy I only have 1 child!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, DITTO.

Grew up in a family with 4 kids. Never felt like I had much 1:1 time with either of my parents. As adults, my siblings aren't even close.

LOVE that my kid won't miss out on a close relationship with me & my husband.

Also, more kids = more stress. We are living the good life in our house. Everything is so easy!

Sounds like you had a generally shitty upbringing with generally shitty and unfeeling people including yourself, all having little to do with the size of your family. That your siblings aren't close as adults speaks volumes.

eh, the reality is that it's hard to make one on one time with each of your kids when you have 4 kids. That doesn't make you a crappy parent, it's just the reality of your life.

Trying to volunteer in 4 different classrooms, go on 4 different field trips every year, plan 4 equal birthday parties, have kids in 4 different activities....is a lot harder than it is with smaller families. I grew up in a family with 4 kids and I rarely got one on one time with my parents. They were both working hard at their jobs, coming home and taking care of chores around the house. As kids, we were expected to pitch in and help out with the yard work, housework, cooking and laundry. The older kids often babysat the younger kids. We pitched in, helped out as needed - not a bad trait to have.

We were loved and cared for but no way did we get the individual attention from our parents that kids from smaller families get. We didn't have the opportunity for travel/extra curriculars, we didn't wear trendy clothes, we didn't go out to eat very often, new toys were birthday/Christmas ONLY. We did learn how to share, work as a team and do a lot with a little.

I am now the parent of 2 kids and it has been way easier for dh and I to give our kids individual attention. If I had to divide my time up between 4 kids, they would get less individual attention and they would each get less of the family's resources. Bigger families do get that interplay of sibling relationships and I think they tend to grow up very grounded.

What you really mean is it's hard to be a PITA to the teacher in four different classrooms, etc. Do you really think your kids are neglected if you don't volunteer in their classrooms? And from the rest of your post the problem wasn't too many kids but not enough money. Had one of the parents stayed home, for example, time wouldn't be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Eh, I disagree, PP. I've known enough families with 4-5 kids that had money, didn't have money, WOH, SAH, etc. Once you get to such a big family (unless there are large age gaps), you just don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe enough for you, but my DH grew up in that family (4 kids, SAHM, cleaners/nanny/chef) and still says he didn't get much one on one time with his parents. It's whether you like "group parenting" - if that's good for you, then cool, but it's not what I wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep forgetting how expensive it is with 2+.
Told my friend about a cheap camp for spring break - she reminded me she had to pay a lot for 2 kids.
Now I see a topic where parents won’t shell out money for assigned seats on airplane because the family is so large.
It is so, so easy to have only one, especially when they are 9+ yo.
I might of course get my karma when he is a teen but for now I just enjoy it so much.
Thank you for listening! I can’t say that in real life as my friends all have 2.

I'm glad you're happy, but it seems weird to focus on the money. I doubt on your deathbed you will care at all about how much money you saved on camps and airline seats.

And the only child will have to deal with aging parents and death and probate on their own.

That's what I always think when I meet families with one child. Sucks for that kid to have to shoulder aging parent issues alone.

Hopefully, we'll be a lot better off financially and can afford elder care provided by specialists so we don't have to burden our kid.

It’s not just elder care. It’s the stress and grief. My siblings and I debriefed daily when our mom was battling cancer and passed away. And now we’re struggling with comforting our dad. He doesn’t need elder care, he just needs company. Plus, emptying and selling a house, planning a funeral, etc. Siblings help you get through these things. And they help by simply having a shared history and memories. Family is typically a good thing.

What do people not understand about the fact that you can get the same type of support from a partner, a close friend, another family member? My best friend and my spouse are my sources of this kind of support, not my brother who lives in another state and calls a few times a year (and we were good friends who used to vacation together, from a close-knit and well-adjusted family).

Having multiple kids does not guarantee siblings will be close friends throughout their lives or a source of support. There's not even a high chance of it from what I've seen out of all the people I know that well.

And YES to getting a will that spells everything out, and purchase life insurance. My kid will be on the hook for nothing - sign the papers and done.

Your kid won’t have to clear out your house or apartment? Well your house or car? Deal with your household goods?

Plan a funeral and host a reception?

[Anonymous]

I am always amazed with the dysfunctional families that are detailed on DCUM. I really hope that this is a vocal minority. Surely, IRL people and families are not so messed up and petty?

[Anonymous]

I am shaking my head about what is there to brag about? What am I missing? Does OP think that most people would want to be in her shoes?

It's not as if she won the lottery or her kid got into Harvard. Or she is immune to Coronavirus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I disagree, PP. I've known enough families with 4-5 kids that had money, didn't have money, WOH, SAH, etc. Once you get to such a big family (unless there are large age gaps), you just don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe enough for you, but my DH grew up in that family (4 kids, SAHM, cleaners/nanny/chef) and still says he didn't get much one on one time with his parents. It's whether you like "group parenting" - if that's good for you, then cool, but it's not what I wanted.

All that means is that your husband's parents did a shitty job parenting. There's simply no excuse given the resources they had -- unless your husband is a super needy person (and he sounds like he might be).

Some of us manage quite well to have four meaningful -- and meaningfully separate -- relationships with other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I disagree, PP. I've known enough families with 4-5 kids that had money, didn't have money, WOH, SAH, etc. Once you get to such a big family (unless there are large age gaps), you just don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe enough for you, but my DH grew up in that family (4 kids, SAHM, cleaners/nanny/chef) and still says he didn't get much one on one time with his parents. It's whether you like "group parenting" - if that's good for you, then cool, but it's not what I wanted.

Interesting.

I’m one of 4.

My SAHM volunteered at school, handled ballet lessons, and was always around. Dad coached sports for all of us and was around. I grew up in the 70s/80s, back when you mostly played with neighborhood kids in big groups outside or in houses. It would have been really weird to play alone with your parents rather than with kids.

One on one time obviously happened as a baby up until pre-K (my siblings and I were spaced 4 years apart). When we were older, one on one time happened driving to/from sports, pre/post games, driving to school (long drive to private HS), etc. as well as during evening conversations, watching tv, etc.

I feel like my parents were always around and available. I certainly never felt neglected or like they were too busy for me.

As a parent of 4, DH and I are always around. We prioritize one on one time with the kids (including special day trips as well as simple things like watching movies/playing cards).

I’m close with my siblings (and their spouses and kids), and I’m confident my kids will be, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, DITTO.

Grew up in a family with 4 kids. Never felt like I had much 1:1 time with either of my parents. As adults, my siblings aren't even close.

LOVE that my kid won't miss out on a close relationship with me & my husband.

Also, more kids = more stress. We are living the good life in our house. Everything is so easy!

Sounds like you had a generally shitty upbringing with generally shitty and unfeeling people including yourself, all having little to do with the size of your family. That your siblings aren't close as adults speaks volumes.

eh, the reality is that it's hard to make one on one time with each of your kids when you have 4 kids. That doesn't make you a crappy parent, it's just the reality of your life.

Trying to volunteer in 4 different classrooms, go on 4 different field trips every year, plan 4 equal birthday parties, have kids in 4 different activities....is a lot harder than it is with smaller families. I grew up in a family with 4 kids and I rarely got one on one time with my parents. They were both working hard at their jobs, coming home and taking care of chores around the house. As kids, we were expected to pitch in and help out with the yard work, housework, cooking and laundry. The older kids often babysat the younger kids. We pitched in, helped out as needed - not a bad trait to have.

We were loved and cared for but no way did we get the individual attention from our parents that kids from smaller families get. We didn't have the opportunity for travel/extra curriculars, we didn't wear trendy clothes, we didn't go out to eat very often, new toys were birthday/Christmas ONLY. We did learn how to share, work as a team and do a lot with a little.

I am now the parent of 2 kids and it has been way easier for dh and I to give our kids individual attention. If I had to divide my time up between 4 kids, they would get less individual attention and they would each get less of the family's resources. Bigger families do get that interplay of sibling relationships and I think they tend to grow up very grounded.

What you really mean is it's hard to be a PITA to the teacher in four different classrooms, etc. Do you really think your kids are neglected if you don't volunteer in their classrooms? And from the rest of your post the problem wasn't too many kids but not enough money. Had one of the parents stayed home, for example, time wouldn't be an issue.

My parents opted to save for our college educations, instead of going on nice family vacations and paying for expenses extra curriculars. My dad was a professional Engineer and my mom was a business office manager so we weren't poor which ironically prevented their children from qualifying for scholarships.

As a SAHM, myself, I understand that the logistics of caring for 2 kids as opposed to 4 kids is quite a different thing.

[Anonymous]

I’m happy for you if you’re happy OP, and if your daughter is happy. I personally love two. I have two friends. One whose only child suddenly developed cancer at 11 and died. Extremely tragic and rare. Not to say that another child would have made up for the profound loss. Nothing can, but it would have brought them some measure of joy and comfort. Maybe seeing the late din in a new child. My cousin and his wife had 1. Then my cousin died suddenly of a heart attack out of the blue at 43. I wish they’d had another child because the son is very lonely and the mother has withdrawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I disagree, PP. I've known enough families with 4-5 kids that had money, didn't have money, WOH, SAH, etc. Once you get to such a big family (unless there are large age gaps), you just don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe enough for you, but my DH grew up in that family (4 kids, SAHM, cleaners/nanny/chef) and still says he didn't get much one on one time with his parents. It's whether you like "group parenting" - if that's good for you, then cool, but it's not what I wanted.

Interesting.

I’m one of 4.

My SAHM volunteered at school, handled ballet lessons, and was always around. Dad coached sports for all of us and was around. I grew up in the 70s/80s, back when you mostly played with neighborhood kids in big groups outside or in houses. It would have been really weird to play alone with your parents rather than with kids.

One on one time obviously happened as a baby up until pre-K (my siblings and I were spaced 4 years apart). When we were older, one on one time happened driving to/from sports, pre/post games, driving to school (long drive to private HS), etc. as well as during evening conversations, watching tv, etc.

I feel like my parents were always around and available. I certainly never felt neglected or like they were too busy for me.

As a parent of 4, DH and I are always around. We prioritize one on one time with the kids (including special day trips as well as simple things like watching movies/playing cards).

I’m close with my siblings (and their spouses and kids), and I’m confident my kids will be, too.

+1. All it takes is time and commitment. Money buys the time, but you can't buy commitment. So when a poster complains about having a neglected husband despite being brought up in a wealthy family, it's pretty clear it's not the size of the family that was the problem. It was the lack of parental commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this thread. I think, OP, that you are actually articulating that you are happy that you have enough money to support your kid(s) (not that you only have one kid).

Meaning, we all have different amounts of money, and it's nice to have enough money to support however many kids we have. For OP, that number is 1.

Op here: I think it’s not just about money, but also effort, health and such.
Every new child is a risk to your modus vivendi I guess.

Interesting.

Do you mean more kids = more effort/work? True. I’ve often felt that many families stop at one or two because it’s easier. Those parents tend to be the ones who require a lot of “me” time. By contrast, parents with more kids tend to be more kid/family oriented.

Health? Whose health?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, DITTO.

Grew up in a family with 4 kids. Never felt like I had much 1:1 time with either of my parents. As adults, my siblings aren't even close.

LOVE that my kid won't miss out on a close relationship with me & my husband.

Also, more kids = more stress. We are living the good life in our house. Everything is so easy!

Sounds like you had a generally shitty upbringing with generally shitty and unfeeling people including yourself, all having little to do with the size of your family. That your siblings aren't close as adults speaks volumes.

eh, the reality is that it's hard to make one on one time with each of your kids when you have 4 kids. That doesn't make you a crappy parent, it's just the reality of your life.

Trying to volunteer in 4 different classrooms, go on 4 different field trips every year, plan 4 equal birthday parties, have kids in 4 different activities....is a lot harder than it is with smaller families. I grew up in a family with 4 kids and I rarely got one on one time with my parents. They were both working hard at their jobs, coming home and taking care of chores around the house. As kids, we were expected to pitch in and help out with the yard work, housework, cooking and laundry. The older kids often babysat the younger kids. We pitched in, helped out as needed - not a bad trait to have.

We were loved and cared for but no way did we get the individual attention from our parents that kids from smaller families get. We didn't have the opportunity for travel/extra curriculars, we didn't wear trendy clothes, we didn't go out to eat very often, new toys were birthday/Christmas ONLY. We did learn how to share, work as a team and do a lot with a little.

I am now the parent of 2 kids and it has been way easier for dh and I to give our kids individual attention. If I had to divide my time up between 4 kids, they would get less individual attention and they would each get less of the family's resources. Bigger families do get that interplay of sibling relationships and I think they tend to grow up very grounded.

There's such a thing as too much of a good thing too though. I'm an only and had a big family in part because of the smothering microscope I grew up under. Without siblings to compare me to and relieve some of the attention, every single mistake, eye roll, and imperfect grade was examined and discussed. I was a really good kid drowning under sky-high expectations without any breathing room at all to have fun and just be a kid.

I was also really really scared of being left alone on this earth someday so I was terrified I'd never find someone to marry which led to some bad decisions about relationships before I met DH. Thank you, therapist, for helping me figure that one out.

I also don't know what I would have done without my dad's brother when my dad passed away. So I'm thankful he had a sibling to take on some of that when it would have fallen entirely to me at age 25, since my mom was a hot mess and incoherent for weeks. I think she was also scared of being alone since I lived across the country. She recently moved in with us because she was by herself with no other family and wasn't handling it well. So I'm still managing all of the emotional and physical work of being my mom's only child without anyone else to take her attention.

I definitely agree with the OP that having 1 child is easier on the parent and cheaper. Every person makes decisions based on their own preferences and experiences though, so there are no wrong answers.

O.k. some natural pitfalls to avoid in bigger families:

1) Giving the oldest a disproportionate amount of your energy because everything is a first with them as a parent. Once you figure things out with #1, then the others follow the same formula.

2) Comparing your younger kids to much more competent older kids. There is a reason the older kids can do more than the younger ones - they are older. This is a good way to make your younger children feel "less than" and inadequate.

3) Give your middle children equal time. The middles are often sandwiched between the attention getting oldest and the doted on baby. They need to feel valued, too.

4) Don't spoil the baby too much or expect the others to do for the baby. Ex: your 7 year old is fighting with her 5 year old sister over a barbie doll. You tell the older one to stop being mean to their younger sister. Instead, hold them both accountable and take away the doll.

Try to always be fair. It's hard because kids have different personalities and some seem need their parents more than others do. It's human nature to take care of the squeaky wheel first. Just be aware that your quieter, less needy children need you, too.

As the oldest, I have almost never observed that the oldest kids get a disproportionate amount of attention the second a sibling comes along. They're older, they're rarely the squeakiest wheel that gets the grease. More often than not, the older kid takes on a parental-adjacent role and has to suck it up all the time because the younger ones need more. I also haven't seen parents make the younger ones feel inadequate because they can't do as much as the older ones; more often I've seen the older ones have to be patient and understanding of the younger because of age, of course they are less competent! BUT the older kid had better be competent at all times, heaven forbid they aren't or have other needs.

We are saying the same thing but coming at it from different perspectives. The older one is the competent one, the doer, the one who is parental-adjacent and oftentimes takes on an authoritative role in the family. The younger ones are cared for and have things done for them. The younger ones grow to idolize their older sibling while viewing themselves as someone who needs assistance and not quite capable of managing w/o help. The parents rely on the older kids to help and they rely on the younger ones to comply with their older siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep forgetting how expensive it is with 2+.
Told my friend about a cheap camp for spring break - she reminded me she had to pay a lot for 2 kids.
Now I see a topic where parents won’t shell out money for assigned seats on airplane because the family is so large.
It is so, so easy to have only one, especially when they are 9+ yo.
I might of course get my karma when he is a teen but for now I just enjoy it so much.
Thank you for listening! I can’t say that in real life as my friends all have 2.

I'm glad you're happy, but it seems weird to focus on the money. I doubt on your deathbed you will care at all about how much money you saved on camps and airline seats.

And the only child will have to deal with aging parents and death and probate on their own.

That's what I always think when I meet families with one child. Sucks for that kid to have to shoulder aging parent issues alone.

Hopefully, we'll be a lot better off financially and can afford elder care provided by specialists so we don't have to burden our kid.

It’s not just elder care. It’s the stress and grief. My siblings and I debriefed daily when our mom was battling cancer and passed away. And now we’re struggling with comforting our dad. He doesn’t need elder care, he just needs company. Plus, emptying and selling a house, planning a funeral, etc. Siblings help you get through these things. And they help by simply having a shared history and memories. Family is typically a good thing.

What do people not understand about the fact that you can get the same type of support from a partner, a close friend, another family member? My best friend and my spouse are my sources of this kind of support, not my brother who lives in another state and calls a few times a year (and we were good friends who used to vacation together, from a close-knit and well-adjusted family).

Having multiple kids does not guarantee siblings will be close friends throughout their lives or a source of support. There's not even a high chance of it from what I've seen out of all the people I know that well.

And YES to getting a will that spells everything out, and purchase life insurance. My kid will be on the hook for nothing - sign the papers and done.

Of course it doesn't guarantee it but it is a higher likelihood that there are supportive people y virtue of this also being their parents. Just like being an only child doesn't guarantee that you will have a supportive spouse or close friends to help. You could be you with no support at all.

It is strange that you don't know anyone that has a good relationship with their siblings and you don't know any siblings who would help each other out. That is extremely bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I disagree, PP. I've known enough families with 4-5 kids that had money, didn't have money, WOH, SAH, etc. Once you get to such a big family (unless there are large age gaps), you just don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe enough for you, but my DH grew up in that family (4 kids, SAHM, cleaners/nanny/chef) and still says he didn't get much one on one time with his parents. It's whether you like "group parenting" - if that's good for you, then cool, but it's not what I wanted.

Interesting.

I’m one of 4.

My SAHM volunteered at school, handled ballet lessons, and was always around. Dad coached sports for all of us and was around. I grew up in the 70s/80s, back when you mostly played with neighborhood kids in big groups outside or in houses. It would have been really weird to play alone with your parents rather than with kids.

One on one time obviously happened as a baby up until pre-K (my siblings and I were spaced 4 years apart). When we were older, one on one time happened driving to/from sports, pre/post games, driving to school (long drive to private HS), etc. as well as during evening conversations, watching tv, etc.

I feel like my parents were always around and available. I certainly never felt neglected or like they were too busy for me.

As a parent of 4, DH and I are always around. We prioritize one on one time with the kids (including special day trips as well as simple things like watching movies/playing cards).

I’m close with my siblings (and their spouses and kids), and I’m confident my kids will be, too.

+1. All it takes is time and commitment. Money buys the time, but you can't buy commitment. So when a poster complains about having a neglected husband despite being brought up in a wealthy family, it's pretty clear it's not the size of the family that was the problem. It was the lack of parental commitment.

Sure, but all of us with fewer kids know that the amount of time you can commit is just less when you have double the number of kids. You chose to have that many kids, of course it's right for your family. Others want more for our kids. More isn't always better and I'm sure your kids are perfectly fine, but a few hours around school and weekends only stretch so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, I disagree, PP. I've known enough families with 4-5 kids that had money, didn't have money, WOH, SAH, etc. Once you get to such a big family (unless there are large age gaps), you just don't have enough hours in the day. Maybe enough for you, but my DH grew up in that family (4 kids, SAHM, cleaners/nanny/chef) and still says he didn't get much one on one time with his parents. It's whether you like "group parenting" - if that's good for you, then cool, but it's not what I wanted.

Interesting.

I’m one of 4.

My SAHM volunteered at school, handled ballet lessons, and was always around. Dad coached sports for all of us and was around. I grew up in the 70s/80s, back when you mostly played with neighborhood kids in big groups outside or in houses. It would have been really weird to play alone with your parents rather than with kids.

One on one time obviously happened as a baby up until pre-K (my siblings and I were spaced 4 years apart). When we were older, one on one time happened driving to/from sports, pre/post games, driving to school (long drive to private HS), etc. as well as during evening conversations, watching tv, etc.

I feel like my parents were always around and available. I certainly never felt neglected or like they were too busy for me.

As a parent of 4, DH and I are always around. We prioritize one on one time with the kids (including special day trips as well as simple things like watching movies/playing cards).

I’m close with my siblings (and their spouses and kids), and I’m confident my kids will be, too.

+1. All it takes is time and commitment. Money buys the time, but you can't buy commitment. So when a poster complains about having a neglected husband despite being brought up in a wealthy family, it's pretty clear it's not the size of the family that was the problem. It was the lack of parental commitment.

Sure, but all of us with fewer kids know that the amount of time you can commit is just less when you have double the number of kids. You chose to have that many kids, of course it's right for your family. Others want more for our kids. More isn't always better and I'm sure your kids are perfectly fine, but a few hours around school and weekends only stretch so far.

Please. Using your logic, by definition a SAHM is always better for a family because she has can devote more time to each individual kids anyone can when all you have is "a few hours around school and weekends."