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.

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.

I'm a 3rd. My brother was the oldest. My sister is 1.5 years younger and the two of the are close. I am 5 years younger than my sister. When my siblings went to college, I was still in middle school and ended up spending a lot of time with my parents. I hung around with my parents and their friends often on weekends and I learned our family tongue. My siblings can understand if we speak to them, but I am the only one that is fluent. I am also more bicultural for our family heritage than my siblings. That is one of the reasons that I am closest to my mom even though I'm a guy. My mother always thought she would be closest to her daughter and she is close, just closer with me because of the language and cultural ties. I also acquired my mother's love of cooking and that bonds us as well.

That said, my parents were amazing parents. They managed to convince all three of us that we were their favorites. My brother is the eldest first-born son, so from the family patriarchal heritage, he *KNOWS* he's their favorite. My sister is the only girl and she was always Daddy's girl and she KNOWS that she was my parents favorite. But I am their baby and the one that is culturally more like them and the one that speaks to them in their mother tongue, so I know that I'm the favorite. And, of course, I know that I'm right and they are wrong.

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.

My parents were both middle children of three and absolutely both felt the way you describe, and they told me that we’d end up in the same situation I’d we (foolishly, in their view) decided to have a third. Im glad we didn’t listen to them!

I will say that our oldest is in some ways a stereotypical oldest child—serious, focused and conscientious. But the second one was born feeling like he was in charge of the household, and there was zero chance he was ever going to be overlooked or ignored. The third one, a teen now, doesn’t fit into any box. They’re all three great, and we feel extremely close to all of them.

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.

Definitely not the case. We actually are more financially comfortable now than when our older two were little (I was able to take a longer maternity leave and have a nanny to keep her at home, I also WAH vs. in an office) so if anything I feel like I’m really getting to soak up the baby/toddler years with my last. Also I’m older this go round (late 30s) and a bit more confident in my parenting so I’m having a lot of fun re-living the little kid years.

As for losing a bond with my middle kid, that isn’t the case at all. But I had a 5 year gap between #2 and 3, so I was already close with my older 2 before the third came along. And FWIW, my middle kid is closest with baby #3 despite being closer in age to my oldest. So I definitely don’t think he feels misplaced by having a younger sibling. In fact he keeps asking me to have another baby! (We are firmly done though).

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.

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.

This isn’t true for us at all.

It wasn’t true for us either. This is probably the OP sock puppeting to keep the thread going. Emotionally healthy parents are bonded to all of their children and emotionally unhealthy parents are not. The OP clearly wants to make this into something negative about three kids, which says a lot about them - namely that they are emotionally unhealthy.

I'm the PP and I'm not OP.

I'm glad for you that your family is emotionally healthy. Many families are not. It is very common for middle children to describe themselves as unseen or invisible and to struggle with self-confidence and feelings of belonging. If that's not your family, great. But OP asked if parents of 3 or more kids feel less bonded to their third, and IME, the more likely outcome is for parents to be less bonded to their second, IF bonding is an issue, which it isn't for everyone.

The level of defensiveness exhibited here does not really speak to emotional healthy, btw.

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!

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.

This isn’t true for us at all.

It wasn’t true for us either. This is probably the OP sock puppeting to keep the thread going. Emotionally healthy parents are bonded to all of their children and emotionally unhealthy parents are not. The OP clearly wants to make this into something negative about three kids, which says a lot about them - namely that they are emotionally unhealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you asking? Do you have two and want three but for some reason can’t have 3 so now you want to feel better? Do you have three and not feel bonded to you third?

In either case I would recommend you get therapy so you can figure out how to parent the kids you have well.

I would recommend you get therapy for being an obnoxious twit.

K troll

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.

This isn’t true for us at all.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Why are you asking? Do you have two and want three but for some reason can’t have 3 so now you want to feel better? Do you have three and not feel bonded to you third?

In either case I would recommend you get therapy so you can figure out how to parent the kids you have well.

I would recommend you get therapy for being an obnoxious twit.

Nah, it's all personality.

I am super connected to all three but #2 and I have a special bond.