What are the bad parts about having three kids?

[Anonymous]

You asked for cons and so I’ll focus on those:

- more expensive and as a PP said, even if u make upper middle class money, you will always be worried by money
- relatedly, physically getting them to their activities is challenging and weighing the costs of ur time and funds is a constant
-travel is fine. We just do Airbnb so I’m not entirely sure what the con is with that that isn’t related to cost.
- three kids, 3 diff interests to consider for everything

That said, as a mom of 3, I’d love more but hubs has put foot down bc of expense. I’m ok giving up some luxuries (yearly travel abroad is the big one for my family) for more kids, hubby is not.

Btw, Your feelings of wanting another won’t be rationalized away by common sense and practicalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

We have no shortage of money for the things you said so the cost hasn't been a negative factor. Its that your attention and time is so much more divided. that may be totally worth it in the long run and i'm sure it'll change over time, but just to give some specific examples

- I used to read to my older 2 in the early AM before #3 - now thats impossible to do that (or anything fun with them) because i'm holding the baby who is whining while cooking breakfasts while getting kids dressed etc. Its just meeting the basic needs to get people safely out the door in the morning versus time to enjoy them

- its harder to spend time as a family because there are so few activities that appeal to all - games and building things are just invitations for the toddler to wreck it, the 6yo has outgrown going to the nature center, the toddler needs full time watching at the playground so i can't kick a ball around with the other 2 anymore. etc etc etc. So DH and I split up the kids a lot instead of doing things as a family because even if we all go to a museum or something together, we just end up in different parts of it

- we miss games and school events and other things i wish i could be at because of conflicting schedules

- it became impossible to keep a serious full time job for one of us because of the sick days (they're really exponential because they're coming from multiple schools / activities / sources and then work their way through more kids) and the 6 dentist appointments a year and the 4 doctors appointments and the OT appointments for one etc etc

and on and on. I do throw a TON of money at it, we have so much help and outsource what we can. And I wouldn't necessarily change it. But i did not appreciate how much having a 3rd would cut down on the parts of parenting I find fun (getting to enjoy an activity with a kid, doing things as a full family all together, having the time to give each a longer bedtime 1:1 time, playing with them at home versus supervising) but there's no amount of money that makes the spread of needs based on being in so many different stages disappear unless you're just offloading a kid all the time

PP here. Yes, this definitely rings true. Yet everyone I personally know with three or more still encourages me to go for it!

[Anonymous]

We have three - our second was twins so some of this is different but biggest cons are: less time and waaaaaaaaaay less $$$. We are DC MC and it's difficult. It's incredibly expensive from more trivial like renting bigger cars on vacation to spending more on child care/camps/interests. We have a nanny so that helps tremendously but I never feel like I spend enough time with each one 1:1 which then results in a lot of hurt feelings and attention seeking behavior. But we do our best and they are awesome little people.

[Anonymous]

I am the twins PP - I don't think we would've had three otherwise. We would've stopped at two

[Anonymous]

My boobs looked fantastic after two kids, but after the third I lost it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

We have no shortage of money for the things you said so the cost hasn't been a negative factor. Its that your attention and time is so much more divided. that may be totally worth it in the long run and i'm sure it'll change over time, but just to give some specific examples

- I used to read to my older 2 in the early AM before #3 - now thats impossible to do that (or anything fun with them) because i'm holding the baby who is whining while cooking breakfasts while getting kids dressed etc. Its just meeting the basic needs to get people safely out the door in the morning versus time to enjoy them

- its harder to spend time as a family because there are so few activities that appeal to all - games and building things are just invitations for the toddler to wreck it, the 6yo has outgrown going to the nature center, the toddler needs full time watching at the playground so i can't kick a ball around with the other 2 anymore. etc etc etc. So DH and I split up the kids a lot instead of doing things as a family because even if we all go to a museum or something together, we just end up in different parts of it

- we miss games and school events and other things i wish i could be at because of conflicting schedules

- it became impossible to keep a serious full time job for one of us because of the sick days (they're really exponential because they're coming from multiple schools / activities / sources and then work their way through more kids) and the 6 dentist appointments a year and the 4 doctors appointments and the OT appointments for one etc etc

and on and on. I do throw a TON of money at it, we have so much help and outsource what we can. And I wouldn't necessarily change it. But i did not appreciate how much having a 3rd would cut down on the parts of parenting I find fun (getting to enjoy an activity with a kid, doing things as a full family all together, having the time to give each a longer bedtime 1:1 time, playing with them at home versus supervising) but there's no amount of money that makes the spread of needs based on being in so many different stages disappear unless you're just offloading a kid all the time

PP here. Yes, this definitely rings true. Yet everyone I personally know with three or more still encourages me to go for it!

I have 3 and people that have 4 unsolicited tell me I should have a 4th b/c its all the same at this point (no thank you!) - both paths obviously have their pros and cons and typically once you have a 3rd, of course you wouldn't wish that specific person away. Just like I wouldn't wish a 4th away if I had a 4th on accident. If someone told me they wanted a 3rd, I'd definitely say "then you should totally have a 3rd, you can handle it!" b/c they most likely can and in the long run they get a whole 3rd person to love. But that doesn't change the downside is real and its worth thinking carefully about how it will or won't take away from the parts of parenting you enjoy. Because while i get a whole 3rd person in the long run, I'll also never get back being able to spend the type of calm very engaged time I used to with my kids while they're young and I do really really miss it and wish I could have that still too. And i'll never be able to go back to the type of career i had without making tradeoffs that are unacceptable to me. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer for most people if the financial side (or a special needs child or something like that) isn't an issue so its all trade offs and then making peace with whatever you decide because you'll most likely always have some wistfulness for whatever path you didnt take

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

We have no shortage of money for the things you said so the cost hasn't been a negative factor. Its that your attention and time is so much more divided. that may be totally worth it in the long run and i'm sure it'll change over time, but just to give some specific examples

- I used to read to my older 2 in the early AM before #3 - now thats impossible to do that (or anything fun with them) because i'm holding the baby who is whining while cooking breakfasts while getting kids dressed etc. Its just meeting the basic needs to get people safely out the door in the morning versus time to enjoy them

- its harder to spend time as a family because there are so few activities that appeal to all - games and building things are just invitations for the toddler to wreck it, the 6yo has outgrown going to the nature center, the toddler needs full time watching at the playground so i can't kick a ball around with the other 2 anymore. etc etc etc. So DH and I split up the kids a lot instead of doing things as a family because even if we all go to a museum or something together, we just end up in different parts of it

- we miss games and school events and other things i wish i could be at because of conflicting schedules

- it became impossible to keep a serious full time job for one of us because of the sick days (they're really exponential because they're coming from multiple schools / activities / sources and then work their way through more kids) and the 6 dentist appointments a year and the 4 doctors appointments and the OT appointments for one etc etc

and on and on. I do throw a TON of money at it, we have so much help and outsource what we can. And I wouldn't necessarily change it. But i did not appreciate how much having a 3rd would cut down on the parts of parenting I find fun (getting to enjoy an activity with a kid, doing things as a full family all together, having the time to give each a longer bedtime 1:1 time, playing with them at home versus supervising) but there's no amount of money that makes the spread of needs based on being in so many different stages disappear unless you're just offloading a kid all the time

Okay, wow. This is exactly what I needed to hear (I'm OP).

I love being a mom more than anything in my life, and I'm obsessed with my children. So I think I figured that since I enjoy this so much, and DH and I are good at it, it means it would be incrementally better/more enjoyable the more you have. But maybe it can be the opposite, at times -- i.e. a third makes it so I can't enjoy the parts of motherhood I loved (doing things as a family, watching them as siblings, bed/bath time cuteness, how they play together, etc. I really didn't think about how the further spread of ages, and the longer you spend in the baby years, puts your cohesive family fun options and shared interests on hold that much longer.

I'm one of three and in retrospect I'm closer with one sister, and my other sister was often dragged to our things and left out.

The money stuff is also so real. Everything is insanely expensive these days.

Anyway, thank you...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

We have no shortage of money for the things you said so the cost hasn't been a negative factor. Its that your attention and time is so much more divided. that may be totally worth it in the long run and i'm sure it'll change over time, but just to give some specific examples

- I used to read to my older 2 in the early AM before #3 - now thats impossible to do that (or anything fun with them) because i'm holding the baby who is whining while cooking breakfasts while getting kids dressed etc. Its just meeting the basic needs to get people safely out the door in the morning versus time to enjoy them

- its harder to spend time as a family because there are so few activities that appeal to all - games and building things are just invitations for the toddler to wreck it, the 6yo has outgrown going to the nature center, the toddler needs full time watching at the playground so i can't kick a ball around with the other 2 anymore. etc etc etc. So DH and I split up the kids a lot instead of doing things as a family because even if we all go to a museum or something together, we just end up in different parts of it

- we miss games and school events and other things i wish i could be at because of conflicting schedules

- it became impossible to keep a serious full time job for one of us because of the sick days (they're really exponential because they're coming from multiple schools / activities / sources and then work their way through more kids) and the 6 dentist appointments a year and the 4 doctors appointments and the OT appointments for one etc etc

and on and on. I do throw a TON of money at it, we have so much help and outsource what we can. And I wouldn't necessarily change it. But i did not appreciate how much having a 3rd would cut down on the parts of parenting I find fun (getting to enjoy an activity with a kid, doing things as a full family all together, having the time to give each a longer bedtime 1:1 time, playing with them at home versus supervising) but there's no amount of money that makes the spread of needs based on being in so many different stages disappear unless you're just offloading a kid all the time

Okay, wow. This is exactly what I needed to hear (I'm OP).

I love being a mom more than anything in my life, and I'm obsessed with my children. So I think I figured that since I enjoy this so much, and DH and I are good at it, it means it would be incrementally better/more enjoyable the more you have. But maybe it can be the opposite, at times -- i.e. a third makes it so I can't enjoy the parts of motherhood I loved (doing things as a family, watching them as siblings, bed/bath time cuteness, how they play together, etc. I really didn't think about how the further spread of ages, and the longer you spend in the baby years, puts your cohesive family fun options and shared interests on hold that much longer.

I'm one of three and in retrospect I'm closer with one sister, and my other sister was often dragged to our things and left out.

The money stuff is also so real. Everything is insanely expensive these days.

Anyway, thank you...

Not to be a debbie downer, but I have so much fun with them when I only have 2 of them....and feel like everyone is just whining for my attention and frustrated I can't give it in the way they want when I have all 3. Even given that, I don't think there's a wrong answer because I'm sure in 20 years all of this will be a blur and i'll be glad I have all 3, but right now i'm feeling very acutely missing the way parenting used to be when I could meet everyones needs at the same time and have fun with them (I'm also a parent that really enjoyed actually playing with them / reading to them for a long time at bedtime / snuggling up for a movie or their favorite tv show / helping them with the hard puzzle etc. In the stage I'm in now it mainly feels like I'm keeping the 1.5yo contained so he's not messing up the other kids stuff while they're frustrated I can't engage in it the way i used to and the 1.5yo is frustrated and whining b/c he can't go mess up the exciting big kids stuff and I feel like most of my parenting time is mediating fights, trying to find things to occupy everyone because I can't personally play with them, cleaning up messes, fetching snacks and water bottles etc. I still do take the older ones on bigger adventures on the weekends but its now with the guilt that i'm leaving the 1.5 behind)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

We have no shortage of money for the things you said so the cost hasn't been a negative factor. Its that your attention and time is so much more divided. that may be totally worth it in the long run and i'm sure it'll change over time, but just to give some specific examples

- I used to read to my older 2 in the early AM before #3 - now thats impossible to do that (or anything fun with them) because i'm holding the baby who is whining while cooking breakfasts while getting kids dressed etc. Its just meeting the basic needs to get people safely out the door in the morning versus time to enjoy them

- its harder to spend time as a family because there are so few activities that appeal to all - games and building things are just invitations for the toddler to wreck it, the 6yo has outgrown going to the nature center, the toddler needs full time watching at the playground so i can't kick a ball around with the other 2 anymore. etc etc etc. So DH and I split up the kids a lot instead of doing things as a family because even if we all go to a museum or something together, we just end up in different parts of it

- we miss games and school events and other things i wish i could be at because of conflicting schedules

- it became impossible to keep a serious full time job for one of us because of the sick days (they're really exponential because they're coming from multiple schools / activities / sources and then work their way through more kids) and the 6 dentist appointments a year and the 4 doctors appointments and the OT appointments for one etc etc

and on and on. I do throw a TON of money at it, we have so much help and outsource what we can. And I wouldn't necessarily change it. But i did not appreciate how much having a 3rd would cut down on the parts of parenting I find fun (getting to enjoy an activity with a kid, doing things as a full family all together, having the time to give each a longer bedtime 1:1 time, playing with them at home versus supervising) but there's no amount of money that makes the spread of needs based on being in so many different stages disappear unless you're just offloading a kid all the time

Okay, wow. This is exactly what I needed to hear (I'm OP).

I love being a mom more than anything in my life, and I'm obsessed with my children. So I think I figured that since I enjoy this so much, and DH and I are good at it, it means it would be incrementally better/more enjoyable the more you have. But maybe it can be the opposite, at times -- i.e. a third makes it so I can't enjoy the parts of motherhood I loved (doing things as a family, watching them as siblings, bed/bath time cuteness, how they play together, etc. I really didn't think about how the further spread of ages, and the longer you spend in the baby years, puts your cohesive family fun options and shared interests on hold that much longer.

I'm one of three and in retrospect I'm closer with one sister, and my other sister was often dragged to our things and left out.

The money stuff is also so real. Everything is insanely expensive these days.

Anyway, thank you...

Not to be a debbie downer, but I have so much fun with them when I only have 2 of them....and feel like everyone is just whining for my attention and frustrated I can't give it in the way they want when I have all 3. Even given that, I don't think there's a wrong answer because I'm sure in 20 years all of this will be a blur and i'll be glad I have all 3, but right now i'm feeling very acutely missing the way parenting used to be when I could meet everyones needs at the same time and have fun with them (I'm also a parent that really enjoyed actually playing with them / reading to them for a long time at bedtime / snuggling up for a movie or their favorite tv show / helping them with the hard puzzle etc. In the stage I'm in now it mainly feels like I'm keeping the 1.5yo contained so he's not messing up the other kids stuff while they're frustrated I can't engage in it the way i used to and the 1.5yo is frustrated and whining b/c he can't go mess up the exciting big kids stuff and I feel like most of my parenting time is mediating fights, trying to find things to occupy everyone because I can't personally play with them, cleaning up messes, fetching snacks and water bottles etc. I still do take the older ones on bigger adventures on the weekends but its now with the guilt that i'm leaving the 1.5 behind)

and last (sorry i'm kind of on a roll now)....it feels like so many things we were close to are delayed. Before #3 was born, we were just beginning to actually have family dinners where we would sit together. Now its back to having a little that will only last at the table a couple minutes and in the couple minutes makes a huge mess and just the energy of that winds up the other 2 so I'm now longer able to sit with them and eat am instead getting toddler started to free up my hands while getting the other 2s meals on the table and their hands washed and by the time they're at the table the 1.5yo is done so its washing him up and grabbing forgotten things for the other 2 then since i'm not sitting calmly the other two get up also and i'm back to trying to get them to focus on dinner but unable to sit with them and chat to help them focus. and it feels like the oldest won't get the routine of a calm family dinner until he's 7 or 8 which isn't what i want for him. same with more interesting travel and being able to do things after dinner like go to the pool in summer and all sorts of things we're back to the starting line for waiting for the youngest to get to be 3 or so to get back to those points

(before anyone says they feel bad for my 3rd, he's my favorite in a lot of ways and I in no way regret his existence personally. i just constantly feel like i'm letting all them down versus what used to be possible and the standards of what i wanted for my kids that i had for myself)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

We have no shortage of money for the things you said so the cost hasn't been a negative factor. Its that your attention and time is so much more divided. that may be totally worth it in the long run and i'm sure it'll change over time, but just to give some specific examples

- I used to read to my older 2 in the early AM before #3 - now thats impossible to do that (or anything fun with them) because i'm holding the baby who is whining while cooking breakfasts while getting kids dressed etc. Its just meeting the basic needs to get people safely out the door in the morning versus time to enjoy them

- its harder to spend time as a family because there are so few activities that appeal to all - games and building things are just invitations for the toddler to wreck it, the 6yo has outgrown going to the nature center, the toddler needs full time watching at the playground so i can't kick a ball around with the other 2 anymore. etc etc etc. So DH and I split up the kids a lot instead of doing things as a family because even if we all go to a museum or something together, we just end up in different parts of it

- we miss games and school events and other things i wish i could be at because of conflicting schedules

- it became impossible to keep a serious full time job for one of us because of the sick days (they're really exponential because they're coming from multiple schools / activities / sources and then work their way through more kids) and the 6 dentist appointments a year and the 4 doctors appointments and the OT appointments for one etc etc

and on and on. I do throw a TON of money at it, we have so much help and outsource what we can. And I wouldn't necessarily change it. But i did not appreciate how much having a 3rd would cut down on the parts of parenting I find fun (getting to enjoy an activity with a kid, doing things as a full family all together, having the time to give each a longer bedtime 1:1 time, playing with them at home versus supervising) but there's no amount of money that makes the spread of needs based on being in so many different stages disappear unless you're just offloading a kid all the time

Okay, wow. This is exactly what I needed to hear (I'm OP).

I love being a mom more than anything in my life, and I'm obsessed with my children. So I think I figured that since I enjoy this so much, and DH and I are good at it, it means it would be incrementally better/more enjoyable the more you have. But maybe it can be the opposite, at times -- i.e. a third makes it so I can't enjoy the parts of motherhood I loved (doing things as a family, watching them as siblings, bed/bath time cuteness, how they play together, etc. I really didn't think about how the further spread of ages, and the longer you spend in the baby years, puts your cohesive family fun options and shared interests on hold that much longer.

I'm one of three and in retrospect I'm closer with one sister, and my other sister was often dragged to our things and left out.

The money stuff is also so real. Everything is insanely expensive these days.

Anyway, thank you...

Not to be a debbie downer, but I have so much fun with them when I only have 2 of them....and feel like everyone is just whining for my attention and frustrated I can't give it in the way they want when I have all 3. Even given that, I don't think there's a wrong answer because I'm sure in 20 years all of this will be a blur and i'll be glad I have all 3, but right now i'm feeling very acutely missing the way parenting used to be when I could meet everyones needs at the same time and have fun with them (I'm also a parent that really enjoyed actually playing with them / reading to them for a long time at bedtime / snuggling up for a movie or their favorite tv show / helping them with the hard puzzle etc. In the stage I'm in now it mainly feels like I'm keeping the 1.5yo contained so he's not messing up the other kids stuff while they're frustrated I can't engage in it the way i used to and the 1.5yo is frustrated and whining b/c he can't go mess up the exciting big kids stuff and I feel like most of my parenting time is mediating fights, trying to find things to occupy everyone because I can't personally play with them, cleaning up messes, fetching snacks and water bottles etc. I still do take the older ones on bigger adventures on the weekends but its now with the guilt that i'm leaving the 1.5 behind)

PP, this stuff gets better, it really does. Our youngest is now 6.5 (older kids are 11 and 9) and they have so much fun together. So many inside jokes, games, selfies when they grab my phone. We still get plenty of snuggles during family movie nights. I guess I’ve never expected to meet all my kids needs AND have fun at the same time, at least, not all of the time. Could you throw on an episode of Bluey or whatever for your toddler sometimes, to give yourself that special time with the older two? I know that’s not perfect parenting, but nothing is, really. You’re also in what I felt like was the hardest phase, i.e., the youngest is mobile but not old enough to participate in the way a four year old would be. You’ll get through it.

OP, these issues are also where spacing matters hugely. Mine are 23 months and then 2.5 years apart, so we’ve mostly been able to function as a unit. If your youngest would be much younger, that’s very different.

[Anonymous]

^^also, it’s okay and important to mourn what you no longer have, but it’s also important to remember that super high parenting standards of the kind you describe are (1) unsustainable and (2) rarely in the best interest of your kids. Just something I wanted to gently point out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me it is all about the money. We have a nice lifestyle with private school, nanny, nice house, nice vacations with business class travel, accounts well seeded for their education, wedding, inheritance. That wouldn’t necessarily all go away with three, but we would certainly have more money concerns.

Adopt me!! Please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is all about the money. We have a nice lifestyle with private school, nanny, nice house, nice vacations with business class travel, accounts well seeded for their education, wedding, inheritance. That wouldn’t necessarily all go away with three, but we would certainly have more money concerns.

Adopt me!! Please

Are you okay giving up all those things? If so you can be my third!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can people post any negatives/downsides/bad experiences of having a third baby, or having three kids in general?

My practical brain wants to stop at two, but my emotional side wants a third. I am really struggling with this decision and feel like some tough love about the realities of three will help!

Downsides - money, travel is harder, time with each is limited, juggling the activities is crazy.

But as a parent of 3, none of that is insurmountable. I prefer the dynamic of 3 and having a larger support system for my kids. Family is everything for us and the siblings are best friends. Does it cost more? Of course. But life is short and having family support is far more important.

The trials of three child parenting passes quickly. They'll be grown before you know it, and then it's nice that they have each other. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

I just didn’t want parenting to be a “trial.” The years go by quickly, yes, but they’re also the most important years of (my) life. Stop when parenting can be a joy, not something to endure. 1, 2, 3, 4 kids, whatever number that is for you personally.