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

[Anonymous]

In my family, 3yr age gaps = less fighting, less toddler/newborn jealousy drama (which is stressful for the toddler as well as the mom).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the best age gap is 4-5 years, and never more than two kids. That way each kid gets to experience being the focus of their parents attention, there is minimal sibling rivalry, they have the benefit of a sibling while also being forced to develop independent social skills, you don’t have to pay for their college tuition simultaneously. Just my two cents.

This is exactly what bred sibling rivalry in two families I know. Kid 1 is four, used to individual attention (read: spoiling), and then gets shunted aside for the baby. Teaching a kid to expect that level of individual attention just to take it away is mean.

[Anonymous]

Our gap is 3.5. Both kids are thriving. Bc of the age difference they seem more individual. I was 1.5 years apart from my sister and we were always like a pair. Same clothes, same toys, same neighborhood friends…

[Anonymous]

2.5 years apart is perfect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our gap is 3.5. Both kids are thriving. Bc of the age difference they seem more individual. I was 1.5 years apart from my sister and we were always like a pair. Same clothes, same toys, same neighborhood friends…

This, we have a 4 year gap and it's easier to avoid competitiveness.

[Anonymous]

God, all those poor twins!

This thread makes me realize how totally insane some parents are. Any distance between siblings can either be good or bad.
Surely you ALL know siblings who hate each other? Are
They all 2.5 years apart? And all the siblings who get along are exactly 3 years apart?

I guess all the bad seed kids can just blame their parents for not timing their birth perfectly? This is lunacy. All you nervous nellies out there with your calendars and your studies controlling when you have sex need to loosen up.

I certainly don’t think my children are irrevocably damaged by being born less than 3 years apart.

Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the best age gap is 4-5 years, and never more than two kids. That way each kid gets to experience being the focus of their parents attention, there is minimal sibling rivalry, they have the benefit of a sibling while also being forced to develop independent social skills, you don’t have to pay for their college tuition simultaneously. Just my two cents.

This is exactly what bred sibling rivalry in two families I know. Kid 1 is four, used to individual attention (read: spoiling), and then gets shunted aside for the baby. Teaching a kid to expect that level of individual attention just to take it away is mean.

Lol. Paying attention to a small child is not "spoiling". And no matter what age our eldest is, if you "shunt them aside" for a new baby, they will be hurt and likely lash out.

A four or five year old has generally started school, and is developing relationships with people outside immediate family and direct caregivers. That can help with the transition to big siblinghood, because it allows their day to day to stay mostly the same -- they go to school, come home and have quality family time. Yes, that family time now incorporates a new member, but if parents are careful about continuing to ensure 1:1 time with the older child and also encourage and support the older child in their new role as big sibling, that transition can feel exciting instead of threatening. Kids this age also often get additional attention at school when the new baby arrives ("Jenny has a new baby brother! That's so exciting!") which can help them see that the new baby augments their lives instead of taking something away.

A younger child often struggles with much bigger changes. If there is a SAHP or nanny, they will suddenly need to share their primary caregiver with a new sibling who has much more immediate needs. Even if they are in daycare, the dynamic changes because generally the new baby will start going to the same daycare. Their entire world shifts to accommodate this new person and they will more immediately see how the new baby constantly cuts their time with their caregivers down. It can lead very quickly to resentment even when parents are trying to avoid it, and if the resentment isn't addressed it can lead to behavioral issues with the yougner sibling. I see it constantly with kids who get a younger sibling at age 2 or 3. But if you wait a year or two, those kids mature a lot and flourish in PK or kindergarten, and their ability to handle being the "big sibling" grows exponentially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our gap is 3.5. Both kids are thriving. Bc of the age difference they seem more individual. I was 1.5 years apart from my sister and we were always like a pair. Same clothes, same toys, same neighborhood friends…

ugh. this word is so grating on my nerves! Stop with the THRIVING!!!!

[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.

What is good for the parents will be good for the kids. If the parents are less harried, tired etc with the gap they have than it will be good for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is good for the parents will be good for the kids. If the parents are less harried, tired etc with the gap they have than it will be good for the kids.

+1, and in this case it's especially true because the age gap becomes significant again when the kids are college-bound teens. If spacing them out more allows parents to feel less stress about that process, that will benefit the kids immensely. Not just because their parents are less stressed, but in the concrete way that it may expand their college options because their parents don't have the stress of paying multiple tuitions for multiple years.

Of course there are families who don't worry about college tuition and therefore it won't factor into their decision. But for many people it will. Which is why it makes sense to focus on what the parents need/want rather than what the 2 or 3 year old wants. Only parents can plan in this way and make these kinds of family decisions. A child can tell you what will make them happy today or tomorrow, but they are not and should not be responsible for their longterm well being yet.

[Anonymous]

I have both - 2 year gap between my oldest two and 3 year gap between my youngest two. I prefer the 3 year gap - really lets them have unique roles in the family, and the ability to look up to the older sibling (while still being close enough together in age to play together).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the best age gap is 4-5 years, and never more than two kids. That way each kid gets to experience being the focus of their parents attention, there is minimal sibling rivalry, they have the benefit of a sibling while also being forced to develop independent social skills, you don’t have to pay for their college tuition simultaneously. Just my two cents.

This is exactly what bred sibling rivalry in two families I know. Kid 1 is four, used to individual attention (read: spoiling), and then gets shunted aside for the baby. Teaching a kid to expect that level of individual attention just to take it away is mean.

Lol. Paying attention to a small child is not "spoiling". And no matter what age our eldest is, if you "shunt them aside" for a new baby, they will be hurt and likely lash out.

A four or five year old has generally started school, and is developing relationships with people outside immediate family and direct caregivers. That can help with the transition to big siblinghood, because it allows their day to day to stay mostly the same -- they go to school, come home and have quality family time. Yes, that family time now incorporates a new member, but if parents are careful about continuing to ensure 1:1 time with the older child and also encourage and support the older child in their new role as big sibling, that transition can feel exciting instead of threatening. Kids this age also often get additional attention at school when the new baby arrives ("Jenny has a new baby brother! That's so exciting!") which can help them see that the new baby augments their lives instead of taking something away.

A younger child often struggles with much bigger changes. If there is a SAHP or nanny, they will suddenly need to share their primary caregiver with a new sibling who has much more immediate needs. Even if they are in daycare, the dynamic changes because generally the new baby will start going to the same daycare. Their entire world shifts to accommodate this new person and they will more immediately see how the new baby constantly cuts their time with their caregivers down. It can lead very quickly to resentment even when parents are trying to avoid it, and if the resentment isn't addressed it can lead to behavioral issues with the yougner sibling. I see it constantly with kids who get a younger sibling at age 2 or 3. But if you wait a year or two, those kids mature a lot and flourish in PK or kindergarten, and their ability to handle being the "big sibling" grows exponentially.

+1. After I went back to work we had our nanny focus on the older child and grandma on the baby (after I went back to work). On weekends DH and I spent a ton of one-on-one time with each child. Reduced the amount of jealousy.

[Anonymous]

2.5-3. It's enough space for them to grow and have their own friends without overlapping. Children too near in space end up having a different dynamic (more twin-like) and the competition is ugly, especially if the parents have a favorite or enjoy playing them off of each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you are overthinking this.

+1

[Anonymous]

my sister and I were 2 years apart almost to the day. we got along SO well together until late elementary/early middle school and then things got ugly, ugly, ugly and we had virtually no relationship until we were much older (like senior and sophomore in college). she was very high achieving, popular, etc. and I was ...not. she thought I was an awkward dork weirdo and just kinda pretended like I didn't exist, and I thought she was a stuck up snob. just so much sibling rivalry and jealousy. now as adults we get along very very well but honestly sometimes I still feel inferior to her. who knows though, a lot of that probably had to do with our personalities and our parents and stuff. not sure if another year would've made a difference.

(Still, though, because of my experiences I am quite biased against the 2 year age gap and purposely went for 3 they're 5 and 2 now and it's going well, so we'll see...)