Parents of three, do you feel less bonded to your third?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

You sound like an idiot who read an Atlantic article on this topic seven years ago and can’t be bothered to even look it up to make sure you got your facts straight. There are pros and cons to every position in a family and BONDING has much more to do with ages, genders, emotional health of parents, spacing of children, marital health, etc. To say middle child syndrome is real and people should really think about it when having more than two kids is stupid and irresponsible. Plenty of people have two kids and aren’t bonded to one or both because of all of the things I listed.

The OP can’t even be bothered to say why they asked this question and it’s because they are a lot stirring troll who clearly is sad somewhere they can’t or don’t have three kids. As a parent of three- it’s great. Sorry you missed out OP!

Why are you so mad? It makes no sense. If your family with 3 kids is happy, share that. You are one family, one data point. It is strange to be angry about this if you are, as you claim, so content.

The OP is clearly a troll because they won’t provide the reason for asking this question and this is a weird thing for someone to start a thread on. Like what is the point? For everyone to agree that if you are a child in a family of three you will not be bonded to your parents?

I had someone on here call me an overbreeder for having three children. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone like that started this thread so they could feel morally superior for only having one or two children.

You seem extremely paranoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

You sound like an idiot who read an Atlantic article on this topic seven years ago and can’t be bothered to even look it up to make sure you got your facts straight. There are pros and cons to every position in a family and BONDING has much more to do with ages, genders, emotional health of parents, spacing of children, marital health, etc. To say middle child syndrome is real and people should really think about it when having more than two kids is stupid and irresponsible. Plenty of people have two kids and aren’t bonded to one or both because of all of the things I listed.

The OP can’t even be bothered to say why they asked this question and it’s because they are a lot stirring troll who clearly is sad somewhere they can’t or don’t have three kids. As a parent of three- it’s great. Sorry you missed out OP!

JFC lady. I'm OP- I stepped away to deal with my THREE KIDS. I feel like I haven't bonded with the baby as much because I'm so busy with the other two, I was wondering if this was common. Yes I am in therapy but my therapist doesn't have kids and suggested I ask some other parents but I don't know any with three. Now that I've given you my life story are you pleased with yourself? Talk about needing therapy.

You know no other parents of three?

Your therapist told you to ask other parents of three kids if they felt less bonded to their third?

Do you believe yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

You sound like an idiot who read an Atlantic article on this topic seven years ago and can’t be bothered to even look it up to make sure you got your facts straight. There are pros and cons to every position in a family and BONDING has much more to do with ages, genders, emotional health of parents, spacing of children, marital health, etc. To say middle child syndrome is real and people should really think about it when having more than two kids is stupid and irresponsible. Plenty of people have two kids and aren’t bonded to one or both because of all of the things I listed.

The OP can’t even be bothered to say why they asked this question and it’s because they are a lot stirring troll who clearly is sad somewhere they can’t or don’t have three kids. As a parent of three- it’s great. Sorry you missed out OP!

JFC lady. I'm OP- I stepped away to deal with my THREE KIDS. I feel like I haven't bonded with the baby as much because I'm so busy with the other two, I was wondering if this was common. Yes I am in therapy but my therapist doesn't have kids and suggested I ask some other parents but I don't know any with three. Now that I've given you my life story are you pleased with yourself? Talk about needing therapy.

Glad you’re in therapy! You sound like you need it cause you’re a whack job.

For what? Asking other parents for their own experiences? You seem very defensive about your own choices. It might be worth some self reflection. Be well.

[Anonymous]

HEY!!! I AM A MUCH LOVED THIRD CHILD!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

As a parent of three, both my middle child and I would agree with this. I wouldn't say we lost the bond, but she rightfully feels like the stereotypical middle child at times.

Me too! I'm the superfluous middle that wishes my parents never had me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope. There's a big age gap between 2 and 3, plus 1 and 2 were accidents while 3 was planned. So no.

I hope you don't behave this way to them! My parents told me I was an accident and I never forgot. It's one of the scars of childhood. They treated me like it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

You sound like an idiot who read an Atlantic article on this topic seven years ago and can’t be bothered to even look it up to make sure you got your facts straight. There are pros and cons to every position in a family and BONDING has much more to do with ages, genders, emotional health of parents, spacing of children, marital health, etc. To say middle child syndrome is real and people should really think about it when having more than two kids is stupid and irresponsible. Plenty of people have two kids and aren’t bonded to one or both because of all of the things I listed.

The OP can’t even be bothered to say why they asked this question and it’s because they are a lot stirring troll who clearly is sad somewhere they can’t or don’t have three kids. As a parent of three- it’s great. Sorry you missed out OP!

JFC lady. I'm OP- I stepped away to deal with my THREE KIDS. I feel like I haven't bonded with the baby as much because I'm so busy with the other two, I was wondering if this was common. Yes I am in therapy but my therapist doesn't have kids and suggested I ask some other parents but I don't know any with three. Now that I've given you my life story are you pleased with yourself? Talk about needing therapy.

Glad you’re in therapy! You sound like you need it cause you’re a whack job.

For what? Asking other parents for their own experiences? You seem very defensive about your own choices. It might be worth some self reflection. Be well.

K troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

100% correct!

My parents are wealthy and I've always felt invisible as a middle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

100% correct!

My parents are wealthy and I've always felt invisible as a middle

Op here. This is so interesting to me. If anything I favor my middle and worry about the baby being ignored. I wonder if it just comes down to individual family dynamics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

You sound like an idiot who read an Atlantic article on this topic seven years ago and can’t be bothered to even look it up to make sure you got your facts straight. There are pros and cons to every position in a family and BONDING has much more to do with ages, genders, emotional health of parents, spacing of children, marital health, etc. To say middle child syndrome is real and people should really think about it when having more than two kids is stupid and irresponsible. Plenty of people have two kids and aren’t bonded to one or both because of all of the things I listed.

The OP can’t even be bothered to say why they asked this question and it’s because they are a lot stirring troll who clearly is sad somewhere they can’t or don’t have three kids. As a parent of three- it’s great. Sorry you missed out OP!

Why are you so mad? It makes no sense. If your family with 3 kids is happy, share that. You are one family, one data point. It is strange to be angry about this if you are, as you claim, so content.

Obviously PP is the parent who created this dynamic and tries to say she just got a rotten kid in the middle. This too is common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

100% correct!

My parents are wealthy and I've always felt invisible as a middle

Op here. This is so interesting to me. If anything I favor my middle and worry about the baby being ignored. I wonder if it just comes down to individual family dynamics.

I have 3 and I think your question is very interesting, OP. I worried when my 3rd was little, too. Everything is fine and I feel very bonded to all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

100% correct!

My parents are wealthy and I've always felt invisible as a middle

Op here. This is so interesting to me. If anything I favor my middle and worry about the baby being ignored. I wonder if it just comes down to individual family dynamics.

I have 3 and I think your question is very interesting, OP. I worried when my 3rd was little, too. Everything is fine and I feel very bonded to all of them.

Thank you. It just feels like I know the older two so well and the youngest is still such a baby it's like I don't know much about her if that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

100% correct!

My parents are wealthy and I've always felt invisible as a middle

Op here. This is so interesting to me. If anything I favor my middle and worry about the baby being ignored. I wonder if it just comes down to individual family dynamics.

First 2 were girls, youngest was the much awaited for boy in a swxist traditional family. Maybe it's dynamics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.

It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.

DP. Is that based on your personal experience? Or studies or something? I’m thinking about families I know with 3+ kids (my siblings, my friends growing up, extended family, etc) and I think most parents did have strong bonds with all their kids. Of course I grew up UMC with emotionally healthy people. Ymmv.

Based on years of private practice as a therapist, largely to UMC families, middle child syndrome is absolutely a real phenomenon. There is a great deal of literature on this. Birth order isn't everything, but there are common dynamics in families with 3+ children, and the overlooked or invisible middle child is quite common. Often layered with other dynamics.

I don't think this dynamic is automatic, and conscientious parents can take steps to counteract it. But people thinking if having more than 2 children, at any socioeconomic level, should be aware of these issues.

100% correct!

My parents are wealthy and I've always felt invisible as a middle

Op here. This is so interesting to me. If anything I favor my middle and worry about the baby being ignored. I wonder if it just comes down to individual family dynamics.

The middle child dynamic comes into play more clearly as your children get older and their emotional needs become more complex. Right now your toddler gets attention because you’re still putting out fires and navigating tantrums.

The middle child invisibility starts after they stop screaming as their primary means of communication. At that point it’s common for the parent to still focus on the screaming baby. The first born has novelty of doing everything first to hold the parents’ interest. Meanwhile, the parents are tapped out on attention for the middle child. It’s hard to get excited for kindergarten graduation when you’ve already done it for your oldest and you’re just tired and want to nap. Of course, by the time your youngest has kindergarten graduation, you’re already feeling how quickly time flies and that this is your last chance to experience these milestones. This happens over and over again for sports, school, and anything else requiring parental engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.

As a parent of three, both my middle child and I would agree with this. I wouldn't say we lost the bond, but she rightfully feels like the stereotypical middle child at times.

Me too! I'm the superfluous middle that wishes my parents never had me.

+1, my role in the family has always been to have no problems or issues and to take up no space and require no attention or resources. I don't really understand what the point was. My older sister also always resented me and her feelings were validated by my parents. My younger brother has special needs. There simply was nothing left for me.