Anonymous wrote:We never did nanny/au pair yet. But my third was born when the oldest went to K, so we never had three kids too young for school at once. My husband is a teacher and handles summers. So the economics of a nanny never worked out.
More than infant care, think about 3-4 middle schoolers, each with one practice and one game a week (all over the county). That’s when things get tricky even if you make each kid pick one activity per season. How will you handle it if Kid A has soccer at 6, Kid B has baseball at 6:30, and Kid C has soccer at 7, all in different places and Kid D is five and needs to be fed/asleep somehow?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Whatever you do, don’t assume you can just have the 3-4 kids do the same sports to make it easier. First of all, kids aren’t like that - they have their own individual strengths and interests. Second, with various ages, it doesn’t help you much anyway - games and practices and tournaments will all be at different times anyway. At most you are helped by passing down cleats or equipment - aka it doesn’t help you much.
+1 So true! I had (misguided) visions about my oldest 2 on the same teams, (just a year apart). Nope. They are so different. Which is great - if a little harder transportationally.
+10000. I have 3, ages 4, 7 and 9, and the 7 and 9 year old are 18 months apart. Even if they could be on the same teams (which is sometimes possible), I actually don't want them to be because one will outshine the other, and it can cause issues. Plus, it is important, as they get older, that they have things of their own, which being on different teams, even in the same sport, allows them to do.
And the 4 year old - he won't be doing anything extracurricular for forever, basically. Too many balls to juggle. We pass on lots of things now - parties and such - because we are already so busy with extracurriculars (and the kids aren't even doing that many!). I want family time, and social stuff is the first to get knocked down the priority list when I have to choose.
Three is wonderful. I wouldn't change it. But it is a lot more than 2, and it is definitely getting harder, not easier, as they age. We both work full-time and have never had a nanny.
DP, but this is where you need to be realistic about whether you're a parent who can say no to extracurriculars. If you think your kids need to Do All the Things, having 3+ kids with two working parents is going to be very, very hard. It's not fair to deny one kid (usually the youngest) any activities because you either can't plan or can't say no. Totally fine to prefer more activities and fewer kids, but it's best to account for that early and to be honest with yourself.
I am pretty sure the four year old will grow up fine without “extracurriculars” at that age. But this is spot on: I knew that having a third meant public school, the kids won’t see Europe until college, and will have fewer extracurricular activities. I thought more kids and fewer activities was better, but it’s no use pretending there isn’t a trade off.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Whatever you do, don’t assume you can just have the 3-4 kids do the same sports to make it easier. First of all, kids aren’t like that - they have their own individual strengths and interests. Second, with various ages, it doesn’t help you much anyway - games and practices and tournaments will all be at different times anyway. At most you are helped by passing down cleats or equipment - aka it doesn’t help you much.
+1 So true! I had (misguided) visions about my oldest 2 on the same teams, (just a year apart). Nope. They are so different. Which is great - if a little harder transportationally.
+10000. I have 3, ages 4, 7 and 9, and the 7 and 9 year old are 18 months apart. Even if they could be on the same teams (which is sometimes possible), I actually don't want them to be because one will outshine the other, and it can cause issues. Plus, it is important, as they get older, that they have things of their own, which being on different teams, even in the same sport, allows them to do.
And the 4 year old - he won't be doing anything extracurricular for forever, basically. Too many balls to juggle. We pass on lots of things now - parties and such - because we are already so busy with extracurriculars (and the kids aren't even doing that many!). I want family time, and social stuff is the first to get knocked down the priority list when I have to choose.
Three is wonderful. I wouldn't change it. But it is a lot more than 2, and it is definitely getting harder, not easier, as they age. We both work full-time and have never had a nanny.
DP, but this is where you need to be realistic about whether you're a parent who can say no to extracurriculars. If you think your kids need to Do All the Things, having 3+ kids with two working parents is going to be very, very hard. It's not fair to deny one kid (usually the youngest) any activities because you either can't plan or can't say no. Totally fine to prefer more activities and fewer kids, but it's best to account for that early and to be honest with yourself.
I am pretty sure the four year old will grow up fine without “extracurriculars” at that age. But this is spot on: I knew that having a third meant public school, the kids won’t see Europe until college, and will have fewer extracurricular activities. I thought more kids and fewer activities was better, but it’s no use pretending there isn’t a trade off.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Whatever you do, don’t assume you can just have the 3-4 kids do the same sports to make it easier. First of all, kids aren’t like that - they have their own individual strengths and interests. Second, with various ages, it doesn’t help you much anyway - games and practices and tournaments will all be at different times anyway. At most you are helped by passing down cleats or equipment - aka it doesn’t help you much.
+1 So true! I had (misguided) visions about my oldest 2 on the same teams, (just a year apart). Nope. They are so different. Which is great - if a little harder transportationally.
+10000. I have 3, ages 4, 7 and 9, and the 7 and 9 year old are 18 months apart. Even if they could be on the same teams (which is sometimes possible), I actually don't want them to be because one will outshine the other, and it can cause issues. Plus, it is important, as they get older, that they have things of their own, which being on different teams, even in the same sport, allows them to do.
And the 4 year old - he won't be doing anything extracurricular for forever, basically. Too many balls to juggle. We pass on lots of things now - parties and such - because we are already so busy with extracurriculars (and the kids aren't even doing that many!). I want family time, and social stuff is the first to get knocked down the priority list when I have to choose.
Three is wonderful. I wouldn't change it. But it is a lot more than 2, and it is definitely getting harder, not easier, as they age. We both work full-time and have never had a nanny.
DP, but this is where you need to be realistic about whether you're a parent who can say no to extracurriculars. If you think your kids need to Do All the Things, having 3+ kids with two working parents is going to be very, very hard. It's not fair to deny one kid (usually the youngest) any activities because you either can't plan or can't say no. Totally fine to prefer more activities and fewer kids, but it's best to account for that early and to be honest with yourself.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Whatever you do, don’t assume you can just have the 3-4 kids do the same sports to make it easier. First of all, kids aren’t like that - they have their own individual strengths and interests. Second, with various ages, it doesn’t help you much anyway - games and practices and tournaments will all be at different times anyway. At most you are helped by passing down cleats or equipment - aka it doesn’t help you much.
+1 So true! I had (misguided) visions about my oldest 2 on the same teams, (just a year apart). Nope. They are so different. Which is great - if a little harder transportationally.
+10000. I have 3, ages 4, 7 and 9, and the 7 and 9 year old are 18 months apart. Even if they could be on the same teams (which is sometimes possible), I actually don't want them to be because one will outshine the other, and it can cause issues. Plus, it is important, as they get older, that they have things of their own, which being on different teams, even in the same sport, allows them to do.
And the 4 year old - he won't be doing anything extracurricular for forever, basically. Too many balls to juggle. We pass on lots of things now - parties and such - because we are already so busy with extracurriculars (and the kids aren't even doing that many!). I want family time, and social stuff is the first to get knocked down the priority list when I have to choose.
Three is wonderful. I wouldn't change it. But it is a lot more than 2, and it is definitely getting harder, not easier, as they age. We both work full-time and have never had a nanny.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Whatever you do, don’t assume you can just have the 3-4 kids do the same sports to make it easier. First of all, kids aren’t like that - they have their own individual strengths and interests. Second, with various ages, it doesn’t help you much anyway - games and practices and tournaments will all be at different times anyway. At most you are helped by passing down cleats or equipment - aka it doesn’t help you much.
+1 So true! I had (misguided) visions about my oldest 2 on the same teams, (just a year apart). Nope. They are so different. Which is great - if a little harder transportationally.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have three: currently 10, 8, and 5.5. DH and I both work FT, albeit with flexible positions. My family is local but largely not helpful, for various reasons. My mom does what she can, but it’s not like we have free childcare or grandparents on standby, the way some do. We did daycare for all three because we found a daycare with our first that we LOVED and so it was worth every penny. A nanny would have been cheaper, probably, but we still would have had to pay for preschool and had an employee, which neither DH nor I wanted to deal with. As it was, when our kids were there, we didn’t worry, ever, about their care. That was priceless.
I book swimming for them at the same time. All three did/will do summer swim team together. DD (the oldest) does Girl Scouts and Girls on the Run, which are feasible, in part because I coach the latter. We’ll let the younger two, both boys, pick another activity and cap it there. All three are in elementary and go to aftercare together.
For vacations, we go to the same beach each summer; it’s become tradition and we all look forward to it. We’ll probably plan a second, “bigger” vacation once/year: Europe, Disney, whatever.
We could have had a fourth kid, but that likely would have meant more stress and/or me cutting back professionally more than I wanted to. I feel very lucky that we have what we do: three amazing kids; rewarding, meaningful, flexible careers; and good neighbors and friends (we vacationed with neighbors, for example). It’s pretty great.
OP, this is key for us as well. We have never needed to rely on neighbors for pick ups, drop offs, etc., but we have helped others and just knowing that this large network exists is priceless. Not that you're looking at moving, but it's one thing that has helped us out a lot.
Anonymous wrote:We have three: currently 10, 8, and 5.5. DH and I both work FT, albeit with flexible positions. My family is local but largely not helpful, for various reasons. My mom does what she can, but it’s not like we have free childcare or grandparents on standby, the way some do. We did daycare for all three because we found a daycare with our first that we LOVED and so it was worth every penny. A nanny would have been cheaper, probably, but we still would have had to pay for preschool and had an employee, which neither DH nor I wanted to deal with. As it was, when our kids were there, we didn’t worry, ever, about their care. That was priceless.
I book swimming for them at the same time. All three did/will do summer swim team together. DD (the oldest) does Girl Scouts and Girls on the Run, which are feasible, in part because I coach the latter. We’ll let the younger two, both boys, pick another activity and cap it there. All three are in elementary and go to aftercare together.
For vacations, we go to the same beach each summer; it’s become tradition and we all look forward to it. We’ll probably plan a second, “bigger” vacation once/year: Europe, Disney, whatever.
We could have had a fourth kid, but that likely would have meant more stress and/or me cutting back professionally more than I wanted to. I feel very lucky that we have what we do: three amazing kids; rewarding, meaningful, flexible careers; and good neighbors and friends (we vacationed with neighbors, for example). It’s pretty great.
Anonymous wrote:Two WOHP with no local family to lean on is just dumb unless you are rich and can afford a lot of household help + money for extras and college savings.
Anonymous wrote:We currently have two and are planning for a third and maybe a fourth. Both parents earn roughly the same amount and contribute jointly to childcare and running the household. I am looking for tips and things to plan for upon arrival the third. When did you find it made sense to hire a nanny or au pair vs day care? What items make sense to outsource vs. doing it yourself? Do you have the kids do the same activities and sports to make logistics easier? What types of things do you typically do for vacation?
I know that this is an open ended question but we mostly know people with two kids and those with more than that have one SAHP. Before people pile on and say that this is too many kids, we are both very involved parents and I am not looking for feedback regarding the optimal number of children. Our jobs are both fairly flexible but we have no local family.