Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a second child 5 years after the birth of my first with special needs, in part because I realized I would be intensely miserable if all I ever was, was the parent of a SN child. It may seem selfish, but since I'd always wanted kids, I thought I deserved a chance to have a normal child-raising experience. So we rolled the dice and won the lottery. Our oldest has taught all of us in the family humility and resilience when dealing with daily mental and physical illness. And our second has shown us how joyful and worry-free parenting a neurotypical child can be.

If any of you are hesitating, I just wanted to relay my experience. Perhaps some of the people closest to you who have asked you this question have this concern in the back of their mind, but can't quite articulate it.

We are in the same boat. It is such a relief. And so much fun.

I'm sure you did not mean it this way, but it is sad to read that you consider the second kid as 'winning the lottery.' I'm hopeful your parenting doesn't reflect that sentiment, though.

I'm the PP who said that. My oldest is now 17 and my "lottery" kid is 12. I know full well that my 12 year old could have a terrible accident or come down with a terrible illness or take a turn in her life that's makes us all stressed out. But for now, she is the "lottery" kid in that I. don't. worry. about her.
And since I worry every day about my 17 year old, and have worried *every single day of his life*... I can't put into words what a balm it is to have such a second child!
My first has taken years off my life, PP. Parenting him has brought me close to divorce twice. As soon as he was born, my husband and I had to rethink our entire life trajectory. Our lives revolve around him and his needs. And this will continue for I don't know how many years.

So pardon me, but it's not appropriate for you to criticize until you've walked in my shoes. I am merely describing my experience. I accept that yours is different.

Yes but what you are saying is that your second child turned out NT so you feel really happy. Great!

So what?

You acknowledged that it was a high stakes gamble. I’m saying you have no business telling other people to reconsider their monumental life decision just because you got lucky. You got lucky. That’s all. It’s no basis for giving anyone else your “anecdotal experience.” Your experience has zero impact on how my second child would turn out. And you sure wouldn’t be there to pitch in if it went sideways. So enjoy what you have and leave it be!

PP you replied to. You and OP both pointed this out, and I have to say that in real life I don't say a word to anyone. I am not the sort of person to pipe up and say "you should have another kid". My first post was to explain that perhaps your relatives who care about you mention this with this thought in mind: that maybe it's worth it to roll the dice? Or maybe it's not. I am not categorical, I do not judge or command. I only wish to remind you of that possibility, if it is indeed a possibility for you. Only YOU get to decide.

So don't accuse me of doing something I have not done. I will not comment to your face. But I am asking the question here, with love. If it's not in the cards, it's not, and of course I respect that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a second child 5 years after the birth of my first with special needs, in part because I realized I would be intensely miserable if all I ever was, was the parent of a SN child. It may seem selfish, but since I'd always wanted kids, I thought I deserved a chance to have a normal child-raising experience. So we rolled the dice and won the lottery. Our oldest has taught all of us in the family humility and resilience when dealing with daily mental and physical illness. And our second has shown us how joyful and worry-free parenting a neurotypical child can be.

If any of you are hesitating, I just wanted to relay my experience. Perhaps some of the people closest to you who have asked you this question have this concern in the back of their mind, but can't quite articulate it.

OP here. I don’t mean to pick on you but I’m going to because what you said is a perfect example. YOU rolled the dice and got lucky. I’m happy for it. However, you are in the group of people who are likely tell me that at age 49 I should just have another kid.

The moms I know who have TWO special needs kids never need to “relay their experience” to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a second child 5 years after the birth of my first with special needs, in part because I realized I would be intensely miserable if all I ever was, was the parent of a SN child. It may seem selfish, but since I'd always wanted kids, I thought I deserved a chance to have a normal child-raising experience. So we rolled the dice and won the lottery. Our oldest has taught all of us in the family humility and resilience when dealing with daily mental and physical illness. And our second has shown us how joyful and worry-free parenting a neurotypical child can be.

If any of you are hesitating, I just wanted to relay my experience. Perhaps some of the people closest to you who have asked you this question have this concern in the back of their mind, but can't quite articulate it.

We are in the same boat. It is such a relief. And so much fun.

I'm sure you did not mean it this way, but it is sad to read that you consider the second kid as 'winning the lottery.' I'm hopeful your parenting doesn't reflect that sentiment, though.

I'm the PP who said that. My oldest is now 17 and my "lottery" kid is 12. I know full well that my 12 year old could have a terrible accident or come down with a terrible illness or take a turn in her life that's makes us all stressed out. But for now, she is the "lottery" kid in that I. don't. worry. about her.
And since I worry every day about my 17 year old, and have worried *every single day of his life*... I can't put into words what a balm it is to have such a second child!
My first has taken years off my life, PP. Parenting him has brought me close to divorce twice. As soon as he was born, my husband and I had to rethink our entire life trajectory. Our lives revolve around him and his needs. And this will continue for I don't know how many years.

So pardon me, but it's not appropriate for you to criticize until you've walked in my shoes. I am merely describing my experience. I accept that yours is different.

Yes but what you are saying is that your second child turned out NT so you feel really happy. Great!

So what?

You acknowledged that it was a high stakes gamble. I’m saying you have no business telling other people to reconsider their monumental life decision just because you got lucky. You got lucky. That’s all. It’s no basis for giving anyone else your “anecdotal experience.” Your experience has zero impact on how my second child would turn out. And you sure wouldn’t be there to pitch in if it went sideways. So enjoy what you have and leave it be!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a second child 5 years after the birth of my first with special needs, in part because I realized I would be intensely miserable if all I ever was, was the parent of a SN child. It may seem selfish, but since I'd always wanted kids, I thought I deserved a chance to have a normal child-raising experience. So we rolled the dice and won the lottery. Our oldest has taught all of us in the family humility and resilience when dealing with daily mental and physical illness. And our second has shown us how joyful and worry-free parenting a neurotypical child can be.

If any of you are hesitating, I just wanted to relay my experience. Perhaps some of the people closest to you who have asked you this question have this concern in the back of their mind, but can't quite articulate it.

We are in the same boat. It is such a relief. And so much fun.

I'm sure you did not mean it this way, but it is sad to read that you consider the second kid as 'winning the lottery.' I'm hopeful your parenting doesn't reflect that sentiment, though.

I'm the PP who said that. My oldest is now 17 and my "lottery" kid is 12. I know full well that my 12 year old could have a terrible accident or come down with a terrible illness or take a turn in her life that's makes us all stressed out. But for now, she is the "lottery" kid in that I. don't. worry. about her.
And since I worry every day about my 17 year old, and have worried *every single day of his life*... I can't put into words what a balm it is to have such a second child!
My first has taken years off my life, PP. Parenting him has brought me close to divorce twice. As soon as he was born, my husband and I had to rethink our entire life trajectory. Our lives revolve around him and his needs. And this will continue for I don't know how many years.

So pardon me, but it's not appropriate for you to criticize until you've walked in my shoes. I am merely describing my experience. I accept that yours is different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a second child 5 years after the birth of my first with special needs, in part because I realized I would be intensely miserable if all I ever was, was the parent of a SN child. It may seem selfish, but since I'd always wanted kids, I thought I deserved a chance to have a normal child-raising experience. So we rolled the dice and won the lottery. Our oldest has taught all of us in the family humility and resilience when dealing with daily mental and physical illness. And our second has shown us how joyful and worry-free parenting a neurotypical child can be.

If any of you are hesitating, I just wanted to relay my experience. Perhaps some of the people closest to you who have asked you this question have this concern in the back of their mind, but can't quite articulate it.

We are in the same boat. It is such a relief. And so much fun.

I'm sure you did not mean it this way, but it is sad to read that you consider the second kid as 'winning the lottery.' I'm hopeful your parenting doesn't reflect that sentiment, though.

I'm the PP who said that. My oldest is now 17 and my "lottery" kid is 12. I know full well that my 12 year old could have a terrible accident or come down with a terrible illness or take a turn in her life that's makes us all stressed out. But for now, she is the "lottery" kid in that I. don't. worry. about her.
And since I worry every day about my 17 year old, and have worried *every single day of his life*... I can't put into words what a balm it is to have such a second child!
My first has taken years off my life, PP. Parenting him has brought me close to divorce twice. As soon as he was born, my husband and I had to rethink our entire life trajectory. Our lives revolve around him and his needs. And this will continue for I don't know how many years.

So pardon me, but it's not appropriate for you to criticize until you've walked in my shoes. I am merely describing my experience. I accept that yours is different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a second child 5 years after the birth of my first with special needs, in part because I realized I would be intensely miserable if all I ever was, was the parent of a SN child. It may seem selfish, but since I'd always wanted kids, I thought I deserved a chance to have a normal child-raising experience. So we rolled the dice and won the lottery. Our oldest has taught all of us in the family humility and resilience when dealing with daily mental and physical illness. And our second has shown us how joyful and worry-free parenting a neurotypical child can be.

If any of you are hesitating, I just wanted to relay my experience. Perhaps some of the people closest to you who have asked you this question have this concern in the back of their mind, but can't quite articulate it.

We are in the same boat. It is such a relief. And so much fun.

I'm sure you did not mean it this way, but it is sad to read that you consider the second kid as 'winning the lottery.' I'm hopeful your parenting doesn't reflect that sentiment, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a second child 5 years after the birth of my first with special needs, in part because I realized I would be intensely miserable if all I ever was, was the parent of a SN child. It may seem selfish, but since I'd always wanted kids, I thought I deserved a chance to have a normal child-raising experience. So we rolled the dice and won the lottery. Our oldest has taught all of us in the family humility and resilience when dealing with daily mental and physical illness. And our second has shown us how joyful and worry-free parenting a neurotypical child can be.

If any of you are hesitating, I just wanted to relay my experience. Perhaps some of the people closest to you who have asked you this question have this concern in the back of their mind, but can't quite articulate it.

This is my experience too. No. 2 took a lot of work on our part but he is amazing. NT kids are a cakewalk compared to my SN kid. Plus I'm happy that each of our kids has a sibling because my own relationship with my siblings has been very special to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should never ever say this. I will say, though, that the most miserable special needs parents I know have one child. Having other children without special needs is a relief and a joy and helps balance it out. Feel free to disagree, but it’s been my observation at all of the many many many special needs settings we have been in. And then of course, there are those parents with multiple kids with special needs, which has to be so very hard. So, I get it.

It could be that the 'most miserable special needs parents' you know are the ones with their hands already more than full and are therefore the least able to handle another child. In other words, being less miserable in the first place allowed the other families to have another child, rather than your assumption that having the other child lessened the misery.

Also, of course, many special needs have a genetic component, so people have to consider those odds, too. That next kid may have special needs as well, thus doubling any misery!

Your statement also kind of assumes that kids with special needs don't provide joy in and of themselves, which is generally not the case.

DP. But that's the thing, you can only hold so much - focusing 100% on one child isn't great for the child or the parent, without SN; adding SN means diluting the focus is more important.

We have two kids, both with SN, and I wish we could have three to dilute things, but because of health issues we can't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that everyone should always have more than one child because parents of only children focus 100% on their child and that "isn't great" for the child or parent? That sounds like you're opposed to one-child families as a general principle, and that you believe the only way parents can "dilute the focus" on their children is by having additional children? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Yeah, that was my read as well. Peopel sure do have a lot of opinions on how many children everyone is "supposed" to have. I don't care how many kids anyone has, but will note that I know a number of adults who were only children who are great people and I've never thought to myself "wow this person would be better if only their parental attention had been diluted a bit more."

Also, perhaps PP isn't aware that it's also possible to have one kid and still not be a super intensive parent who is super-duper lasered in on your kid. Like that's one style of parenting, but you can also be a laid back parent of one child who gives you kid plenty of time to themselves, room to make decisions (and mistakes), and freedom. Many parents have jobs, hobbies, caregiving duties for other family members, volunteer work, or just active inner lives that help them stay balanced parents even without creating a whole other person to distract them from the first child.

But for many of not most special needs, more intensive parenting is required. It’s not a “style”. It’s a function of extra needs.

So if it’s required, why is it a good thing to dilute it? It feels like you’re setting up a scenario for guaranteed parental burnout with this mindset.

PP here. Somewhat more intensive parenting is required, but with more children to spread focus, then less burnout will happen.

No, your logic is flawed. Parents aren't less burnt out by having their parenting spread between more children. You may claim that CHILDREN receive less attention by having more siblings, and less attention is a good thing for them. But parents don't have X amount of attention they give children and that amount gets divided based on the number of children they have. More children require more parental energy, PLUS the additional energy required to divide attention properly. Parents, ALL parents, avoid burn out by focusing on things other than parenting - hobbies, work, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should never ever say this. I will say, though, that the most miserable special needs parents I know have one child. Having other children without special needs is a relief and a joy and helps balance it out. Feel free to disagree, but it’s been my observation at all of the many many many special needs settings we have been in. And then of course, there are those parents with multiple kids with special needs, which has to be so very hard. So, I get it.

It could be that the 'most miserable special needs parents' you know are the ones with their hands already more than full and are therefore the least able to handle another child. In other words, being less miserable in the first place allowed the other families to have another child, rather than your assumption that having the other child lessened the misery.

Also, of course, many special needs have a genetic component, so people have to consider those odds, too. That next kid may have special needs as well, thus doubling any misery!

Your statement also kind of assumes that kids with special needs don't provide joy in and of themselves, which is generally not the case.

DP. But that's the thing, you can only hold so much - focusing 100% on one child isn't great for the child or the parent, without SN; adding SN means diluting the focus is more important.

We have two kids, both with SN, and I wish we could have three to dilute things, but because of health issues we can't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that everyone should always have more than one child because parents of only children focus 100% on their child and that "isn't great" for the child or parent? That sounds like you're opposed to one-child families as a general principle, and that you believe the only way parents can "dilute the focus" on their children is by having additional children? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Yeah, that was my read as well. Peopel sure do have a lot of opinions on how many children everyone is "supposed" to have. I don't care how many kids anyone has, but will note that I know a number of adults who were only children who are great people and I've never thought to myself "wow this person would be better if only their parental attention had been diluted a bit more."

Also, perhaps PP isn't aware that it's also possible to have one kid and still not be a super intensive parent who is super-duper lasered in on your kid. Like that's one style of parenting, but you can also be a laid back parent of one child who gives you kid plenty of time to themselves, room to make decisions (and mistakes), and freedom. Many parents have jobs, hobbies, caregiving duties for other family members, volunteer work, or just active inner lives that help them stay balanced parents even without creating a whole other person to distract them from the first child.

But for many of not most special needs, more intensive parenting is required. It’s not a “style”. It’s a function of extra needs.

So if it’s required, why is it a good thing to dilute it? It feels like you’re setting up a scenario for guaranteed parental burnout with this mindset.

PP here. Somewhat more intensive parenting is required, but with more children to spread focus, then less burnout will happen.

No, your logic is flawed. Parents aren't less burnt out by having their parenting spread between more children. You may claim that CHILDREN receive less attention by having more siblings, and less attention is a good thing for them. But parents don't have X amount of attention they give children and that amount gets divided based on the number of children they have. More children require more parental energy, PLUS the additional energy required to divide attention properly. Parents, ALL parents, avoid burn out by focusing on things other than parenting - hobbies, work, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should never ever say this. I will say, though, that the most miserable special needs parents I know have one child. Having other children without special needs is a relief and a joy and helps balance it out. Feel free to disagree, but it’s been my observation at all of the many many many special needs settings we have been in. And then of course, there are those parents with multiple kids with special needs, which has to be so very hard. So, I get it.

It could be that the 'most miserable special needs parents' you know are the ones with their hands already more than full and are therefore the least able to handle another child. In other words, being less miserable in the first place allowed the other families to have another child, rather than your assumption that having the other child lessened the misery.

Also, of course, many special needs have a genetic component, so people have to consider those odds, too. That next kid may have special needs as well, thus doubling any misery!

Your statement also kind of assumes that kids with special needs don't provide joy in and of themselves, which is generally not the case.

DP. But that's the thing, you can only hold so much - focusing 100% on one child isn't great for the child or the parent, without SN; adding SN means diluting the focus is more important.

We have two kids, both with SN, and I wish we could have three to dilute things, but because of health issues we can't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that everyone should always have more than one child because parents of only children focus 100% on their child and that "isn't great" for the child or parent? That sounds like you're opposed to one-child families as a general principle, and that you believe the only way parents can "dilute the focus" on their children is by having additional children? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Yeah, that was my read as well. Peopel sure do have a lot of opinions on how many children everyone is "supposed" to have. I don't care how many kids anyone has, but will note that I know a number of adults who were only children who are great people and I've never thought to myself "wow this person would be better if only their parental attention had been diluted a bit more."

Also, perhaps PP isn't aware that it's also possible to have one kid and still not be a super intensive parent who is super-duper lasered in on your kid. Like that's one style of parenting, but you can also be a laid back parent of one child who gives you kid plenty of time to themselves, room to make decisions (and mistakes), and freedom. Many parents have jobs, hobbies, caregiving duties for other family members, volunteer work, or just active inner lives that help them stay balanced parents even without creating a whole other person to distract them from the first child.

But for many of not most special needs, more intensive parenting is required. It’s not a “style”. It’s a function of extra needs.

So if it’s required, why is it a good thing to dilute it? It feels like you’re setting up a scenario for guaranteed parental burnout with this mindset.

PP here. Somewhat more intensive parenting is required, but with more children to spread focus, then less burnout will happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should never ever say this. I will say, though, that the most miserable special needs parents I know have one child. Having other children without special needs is a relief and a joy and helps balance it out. Feel free to disagree, but it’s been my observation at all of the many many many special needs settings we have been in. And then of course, there are those parents with multiple kids with special needs, which has to be so very hard. So, I get it.

It could be that the 'most miserable special needs parents' you know are the ones with their hands already more than full and are therefore the least able to handle another child. In other words, being less miserable in the first place allowed the other families to have another child, rather than your assumption that having the other child lessened the misery.

Also, of course, many special needs have a genetic component, so people have to consider those odds, too. That next kid may have special needs as well, thus doubling any misery!

Your statement also kind of assumes that kids with special needs don't provide joy in and of themselves, which is generally not the case.

DP. But that's the thing, you can only hold so much - focusing 100% on one child isn't great for the child or the parent, without SN; adding SN means diluting the focus is more important.

We have two kids, both with SN, and I wish we could have three to dilute things, but because of health issues we can't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that everyone should always have more than one child because parents of only children focus 100% on their child and that "isn't great" for the child or parent? That sounds like you're opposed to one-child families as a general principle, and that you believe the only way parents can "dilute the focus" on their children is by having additional children? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Yeah, that was my read as well. Peopel sure do have a lot of opinions on how many children everyone is "supposed" to have. I don't care how many kids anyone has, but will note that I know a number of adults who were only children who are great people and I've never thought to myself "wow this person would be better if only their parental attention had been diluted a bit more."

Also, perhaps PP isn't aware that it's also possible to have one kid and still not be a super intensive parent who is super-duper lasered in on your kid. Like that's one style of parenting, but you can also be a laid back parent of one child who gives you kid plenty of time to themselves, room to make decisions (and mistakes), and freedom. Many parents have jobs, hobbies, caregiving duties for other family members, volunteer work, or just active inner lives that help them stay balanced parents even without creating a whole other person to distract them from the first child.

But for many of not most special needs, more intensive parenting is required. It’s not a “style”. It’s a function of extra needs.

So if it’s required, why is it a good thing to dilute it? It feels like you’re setting up a scenario for guaranteed parental burnout with this mindset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should never ever say this. I will say, though, that the most miserable special needs parents I know have one child. Having other children without special needs is a relief and a joy and helps balance it out. Feel free to disagree, but it’s been my observation at all of the many many many special needs settings we have been in. And then of course, there are those parents with multiple kids with special needs, which has to be so very hard. So, I get it.

It could be that the 'most miserable special needs parents' you know are the ones with their hands already more than full and are therefore the least able to handle another child. In other words, being less miserable in the first place allowed the other families to have another child, rather than your assumption that having the other child lessened the misery.

Also, of course, many special needs have a genetic component, so people have to consider those odds, too. That next kid may have special needs as well, thus doubling any misery!

Your statement also kind of assumes that kids with special needs don't provide joy in and of themselves, which is generally not the case.

DP. But that's the thing, you can only hold so much - focusing 100% on one child isn't great for the child or the parent, without SN; adding SN means diluting the focus is more important.

We have two kids, both with SN, and I wish we could have three to dilute things, but because of health issues we can't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that everyone should always have more than one child because parents of only children focus 100% on their child and that "isn't great" for the child or parent? That sounds like you're opposed to one-child families as a general principle, and that you believe the only way parents can "dilute the focus" on their children is by having additional children? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Yeah, that was my read as well. Peopel sure do have a lot of opinions on how many children everyone is "supposed" to have. I don't care how many kids anyone has, but will note that I know a number of adults who were only children who are great people and I've never thought to myself "wow this person would be better if only their parental attention had been diluted a bit more."

Also, perhaps PP isn't aware that it's also possible to have one kid and still not be a super intensive parent who is super-duper lasered in on your kid. Like that's one style of parenting, but you can also be a laid back parent of one child who gives you kid plenty of time to themselves, room to make decisions (and mistakes), and freedom. Many parents have jobs, hobbies, caregiving duties for other family members, volunteer work, or just active inner lives that help them stay balanced parents even without creating a whole other person to distract them from the first child.

But for many of not most special needs, more intensive parenting is required. It’s not a “style”. It’s a function of extra needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should never ever say this. I will say, though, that the most miserable special needs parents I know have one child. Having other children without special needs is a relief and a joy and helps balance it out. Feel free to disagree, but it’s been my observation at all of the many many many special needs settings we have been in. And then of course, there are those parents with multiple kids with special needs, which has to be so very hard. So, I get it.

It could be that the 'most miserable special needs parents' you know are the ones with their hands already more than full and are therefore the least able to handle another child. In other words, being less miserable in the first place allowed the other families to have another child, rather than your assumption that having the other child lessened the misery.

Also, of course, many special needs have a genetic component, so people have to consider those odds, too. That next kid may have special needs as well, thus doubling any misery!

Your statement also kind of assumes that kids with special needs don't provide joy in and of themselves, which is generally not the case.

DP. But that's the thing, you can only hold so much - focusing 100% on one child isn't great for the child or the parent, without SN; adding SN means diluting the focus is more important.

We have two kids, both with SN, and I wish we could have three to dilute things, but because of health issues we can't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that everyone should always have more than one child because parents of only children focus 100% on their child and that "isn't great" for the child or parent? That sounds like you're opposed to one-child families as a general principle, and that you believe the only way parents can "dilute the focus" on their children is by having additional children? Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Yeah, that was my read as well. Peopel sure do have a lot of opinions on how many children everyone is "supposed" to have. I don't care how many kids anyone has, but will note that I know a number of adults who were only children who are great people and I've never thought to myself "wow this person would be better if only their parental attention had been diluted a bit more."

Also, perhaps PP isn't aware that it's also possible to have one kid and still not be a super intensive parent who is super-duper lasered in on your kid. Like that's one style of parenting, but you can also be a laid back parent of one child who gives you kid plenty of time to themselves, room to make decisions (and mistakes), and freedom. Many parents have jobs, hobbies, caregiving duties for other family members, volunteer work, or just active inner lives that help them stay balanced parents even without creating a whole other person to distract them from the first child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People should never ever say this. I will say, though, that the most miserable special needs parents I know have one child. Having other children without special needs is a relief and a joy and helps balance it out. Feel free to disagree, but it’s been my observation at all of the many many many special needs settings we have been in. And then of course, there are those parents with multiple kids with special needs, which has to be so very hard. So, I get it.

It could be that the 'most miserable special needs parents' you know are the ones with their hands already more than full and are therefore the least able to handle another child. In other words, being less miserable in the first place allowed the other families to have another child, rather than your assumption that having the other child lessened the misery.

Also, of course, many special needs have a genetic component, so people have to consider those odds, too. That next kid may have special needs as well, thus doubling any misery!

Your statement also kind of assumes that kids with special needs don't provide joy in and of themselves, which is generally not the case.

DP. But that's the thing, you can only hold so much - focusing 100% on one child isn't great for the child or the parent, without SN; adding SN means diluting the focus is more important.

We have two kids, both with SN, and I wish we could have three to dilute things, but because of health issues we can't.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that everyone should always have more than one child because parents of only children focus 100% on their child and that "isn't great" for the child or parent? That sounds like you're opposed to one-child families as a general principle, and that you believe the only way parents can "dilute the focus" on their children is by having additional children? Is that a correct understanding of your position?