Best age range for two
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| 18-24 months apart |
Anonymous
| 3-4 years apart |
Anonymous
| I have 4 kids, and realized 3 years is the perfect age gap. |
Anonymous
| My older two are separated by exactly two years and it was a much much harder experience than when my third was born 3.5 years after the middle child. I think 3 years is the sweet spot, not 2. |
Anonymous
Agree. My two boys are 2 yrs 9 mths apart. There was major jealousy from the beginning and still is at 6 and 4. They fight constantly. I think introducing a baby when the first was almost 3 wasnt ideal because I have found age 3 to be tough. I feel like bringing in a new baby when the first is 4 would be better based on what I have seen with friends. |
Anonymous
|
Two for two. tried and true.
Means two year age difference is perfect, imo. |
Anonymous
I wonder this also. Mine are 18 months apart and it was easy breezy. Two years seems to be the golden rule for two kids but my friends all had a terrible time! 18 months was a surprise to me but it worked out beautifully. |
Anonymous
| Mine are 4 years apart and different genders. This is what was best for my family. |
Anonymous
| Mine are exactly 24 months apart. I love it now at 6.5 and 4.5. In the early days - I definitely think 2.5-3 years apart would’ve made things easier. |
Anonymous
| Mine are 26 months apart, younger boy older girl and it was never really bad. When she was a toddler we purposefully gave her a lot of extra attention and told her the baby was “her” baby so it didn’t register as competition. Now they bicker occasionally but are mostly buddies. |
Anonymous
| I had a girl first. My second, a boy, came 2 years, 3 months later. My third, another boy, came 3 years, 1 month after my second. I totally preferred the 3 year difference because my middle child was out of the true baby years, and was already potty trained. So much easier than having two babies at the same time. |
Anonymous
| We went for 2.5-3 years. We didn't feel like we wanted to "get the baby stage over" rather preferred to enjoy the baby stage with each one. Our friends who had their children closer together had their heads down for 3-4 years "getting through" in the hopes that having their children closer in age would guarantee they'd have a close relationship for life. I think relationships are based on more than age. Different age gaps work for different families so you should figure out what will work best for you. It's so highly dependent on personality, family environment, health issues, etc. FWIW, I ended up on 4 months of bed rest with #2 after a very healthy and easy pregnancy with #1. We were completely blindsided and I am not sure how we would have handled it if our first had been any younger. |
Anonymous
Eh, we have a 2.5 year gap, and if I were doing it again, I'd space them apart a bit more. The problem is, you don't know whether your sweet 20 month old is going to become the world's grouchiest 3 year old. I have in my mind that the my 3 year old's reign of terror will subside somewhat as he gets closer to 4 (everyone once in a while it seems like that's the trend?) so maybe 4 years would be ideal. |
Anonymous
|
2 years. My friends that had them 2.5 years apart struggled more because 2.5 is generally a harder age than 2.
I never had a sibling but was incredibly jealous of all my friends with siblings 2 years apart. |
Anonymous
| you can't predict this. I have 4 siblings and get along the the least with the one that is 2 years and 3 months younger than me. |