Two or Three Year Age Gap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, don't try to optimize this. Thank your lucky stars, whenever.

+1 PP speaks truth.

[Anonymous]

3 year ave gap! I’ve had at 22 month age gap and exactly 4 year age gap. I much prefer the 4 year gap. There is less fighting but they still get along.

[Anonymous]

My 2 years, 9 months apart boys are BFFs!

[Anonymous]

We have 3. The gaps are 3.5 and 2 and 3 months. The 3.5 gap is better for us parents, but the 2 years gap is the best for the kids. They are closer in age, play together, and do a lot of activities together.

[Anonymous]

Between 2 and 3 is good but I think closer to 2 is better than 3.5, and pay attention to grade levels. Mine are 2.75 but 2 grades apart and I really have enjoyed the grade school and middle school connections they have in common.

It’s a little harder when they are born and when they are toddlers though, but I figure that’s only a few years compared to the much longer 5-18 year span.

And really - you can’t plan for this though - could take longer than you think and you kinda get what you get in the end

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it matters that much. I think whether they play together or get along will depend much more on their personalities than on age gap.

I had a 3.5 age gap (I was aiming for 2.5 but two miscarriages killed that plan). I didn't think they would play together but they did, quite a bit. When they did not, I attribute mostly to them being different genders and having very different interests. They get along great and almost never fight -- but again, just luck of the draw and not much to do with spacing.

For you, I think 3 will be easier in the beginning because your older will be a little more independent. But later on life, 2 may be easier because there will more years they will be in the same school and they will generally be i the same stage of childhood at the same time.

OP here. I shoulda have been more specific. I’m not asking in the sense that they get along and play together. I’m asking if they think a 2 or 3 year age gap is easier? Some have said a 2 year gap is easier because oldest is still young and you can get through all the baby phases quicker, and others have said it’s hard because you oldest isn’t super independent and it’s hard to care for both of them. Some have said the 3 year age gap is good because oldest child is older and more aware and independent, and others have said the child being older means more rejection for baby and it can make for a tougher transition.

But whether they play together is part of the answer. My kids are almost exactly 2 years apart. While it may initially have been easier if my older kid had been 3 before we had his sibling (and I have my doubts about that- I think you may be overestimating the "independence" of a 3 year old), it makes my life a lot easier when my kids can entertain each other. As someone else noted, the period of time when I had a 2 year old and newborn was way shorter than the years my kids were 4-9 (they are now 9 and 7).

I have kids with a 3 year age gap (4 and 7 now). To help OP, when people talk about the increased “independence” of a 3 year old vs a 2 year old, it’s not like the 3 year old is making dinner by herself. But for me, it was really critical that my older child could do things like climb into her car seat by herself without me lifting her, go potty on her own so I didn’t have to change two sets of diapers, be able to pay attention to a movie or TV show for a bit if I needed her to be quiet while I put the baby down, and the ability to play or draw for 15-20 minutes by herself. With these things, a 3 year gap was much easier in the first year than a 2 year gap would have been. Now that they’re older, I can see that some things would be easier if they were closer in ages/stages. They do play together well, but it would be nice to have more time when they are in the same elementary school, etc.

I agree with this.

However, it’s really only those couple months it matters. It also can be offset by finding a toddler preschool for the older child.

Also depends on the child. My oldest was a very easy child in terms of behavior (hardly ever had tantrums, listened even at 2), but was demanding of my time engaging/playing with her as she didn’t like being or playing alone. Giving her a sister to play with earlier was the biggest gift to the both of us (her needs and my sanity)

[Anonymous]

I wish my kids were closer in age sigh but right now it’s 3.5 and it’s okay.

[Anonymous]

My daughters are 2 years apart, and it has never been easy. Their interests have been different since birth (one is artistic, another one loves math and now computer science). They never played together but are both very active and opinionated, kept me super busy and exhausted.

[Anonymous]

The greatest benefit to a three year age gap is not having two in diapers. My older child was potty trained before the baby was born.

Three is also a little more mature and you can teach them to be a good helper and to try to "teach the baby good manners", etc...

[Anonymous]

3-year gap is better. Kid #1 will be in preschool full time when new little one comes along.

--Mom of 3 kids ages 4, 7, 10

[Anonymous]

My boys are 22 months apart and it's been good. We didn't have time to switch out of little kid mode, the older one doesn't even remember a time before his younger bro was born (he's now 5), and they've played well together since about 2.5 and 4.5 (basically, once the younger one could communicate verbally well enough to make up games together and was big and sturdy enough to play physically with the older one). Now pregnant with my third, who will be 3.5 years younger than my younger son. I think some things will be easier (5yo will be helpful) but many others will be harder (we've forgotten everything we knew about babies; younger bro will likely be jealous). Also if you start trying now it might work immediately or it might not. So my vote would be to go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My boys are 22 months apart and it's been good. We didn't have time to switch out of little kid mode, the older one doesn't even remember a time before his younger bro was born (he's now 5), and they've played well together since about 2.5 and 4.5 (basically, once the younger one could communicate verbally well enough to make up games together and was big and sturdy enough to play physically with the older one). Now pregnant with my third, who will be 3.5 years younger than my younger son. I think some things will be easier (5yo will be helpful) but many others will be harder (we've forgotten everything we knew about babies; younger bro will likely be jealous). Also if you start trying now it might work immediately or it might not. So my vote would be to go for it.

^ I should add that my oldest is pretty easy, which helped. He was out of both diapers and the stroller by 2.5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3-year gap is better. Kid #1 will be in preschool full time when new little one comes along.

--Mom of 3 kids ages 4, 7, 10

It seems that you only had a 3 year age gap and can’t really compare. I had both and prefer the shorter age gap after the youngest turns 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The greatest benefit to a three year age gap is not having two in diapers. My older child was potty trained before the baby was born.

Three is also a little more mature and you can teach them to be a good helper and to try to "teach the baby good manners", etc...

All my kids were potty trained by the time they turned 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3-year gap is better. Kid #1 will be in preschool full time when new little one comes along.

--Mom of 3 kids ages 4, 7, 10

LOL. 3 year gap is better for you because you don't know any better.