Anonymous
Post 02/13/2019 16:17     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
My best friend did this and it killed her marriage. She was a miserable mess.
Anonymous
Post 02/13/2019 16:15     Subject: Re:3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
OP, have you and DH sat down and planned FAR ahead financially for college? Without any assumptions such as scholarships or family financial help (neither might materialize)? Have you also planned out your own retirement savings over time so you and DH don't discover that several kids in college at once means you have insufficient or no retirement fund? Maybe you've done all that already and if so, great, it's a moot point!

I know posters will say you can't put a price on having kids. But finances are a real consideration that sometimes doesn't get looked at in detail until kids are starting school or even later when they're getting close to college.
Anonymous
Post 02/13/2019 12:33     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
We had three in 4 1/2 years. The youngest is now 10. If you want three, then just go for it. You will make it work. Was it tough when they were little? Yes. But you know what, you raise your kids to be responsible from the start. A 4 year-old can step up and get himself dressed and help his 3 year old sister to find her shoes in the morning while mommy gets the baby ready. We both worked full time and had the youngest in daycare and two older ones in full time preschool. It’s definitely expensive though. For those who say it’s hard, so what? It’s always going to be hard. But I love my family of five. If anything, I wish we had started when we were younger so we could’ve had four kids!
Anonymous
Post 02/13/2019 10:12     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
I had 3 relatively close in age and completely underestimated the difficulty of continuing to work full-time with 3 kids (we both had demanding jobs, plus DH's job required frequent travel). In addition to the wear and tear on your body, I'd think carefully about work, even with the ability to hire lots of help. There are lots of options -- like OP's DH taking a job that doesn't require travel, or someone cutting back to part-time, or two manageable jobs. And some people just power on through. For us, however, the number of sick days/appointments, afterschool activities, a special needs kid, as well as some really unfortunately hospitalizations pushed me out of the labor market. I've enjoyed staying home, but it wasn't what I intended. For some reason working with 2 was easy, working with 3 was not, although some of that may have had to do with increasing responsibilities at work for both of us as we hit our late 30's.
Anonymous
Post 02/13/2019 09:55     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have 4 in just under 5 years - no twins. We are terrorized now that they are all teens/college bound but I wouldn’t change it. Sure my body is shot but I see women everyday who are my age (45) and look the same and have less kids. Good body or more kids? Is that even a real question?


Does it really have to be one or the other? I had two under two and my body is exactly back to what it was pre pregnancy. I worked hard for it and obviously genetics help. Planning for baby 3 now but don’t think it will be any easier or harder to lose the weight this time around.


Maybe, maybe not. I found my third pregnancy much harder than my first two. I was running throughout first two, and could only really walk during my third and wore a support belt the whole time. I expressed my shock to my care providers and they really just shrugged and said, “well, it’s your third. It gets harder on your body.” So maybe your genetics will make it easy for your third too, but I wouldn’t be too cocky about it before you’re even pregnant with #3.
Anonymous
Post 02/13/2019 09:18     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
Anonymous wrote:I have 4 in just under 5 years - no twins. We are terrorized now that they are all teens/college bound but I wouldn’t change it. Sure my body is shot but I see women everyday who are my age (45) and look the same and have less kids. Good body or more kids? Is that even a real question?


Does it really have to be one or the other? I had two under two and my body is exactly back to what it was pre pregnancy. I worked hard for it and obviously genetics help. Planning for baby 3 now but don’t think it will be any easier or harder to lose the weight this time around.
Anonymous
Post 02/13/2019 00:20     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
23:40 I don’t think the poster commenting on it being a lot for her body was thinking looks. I think she was referring to things like healing properly from a CS if OP had one, nutritional deficiencies, increased risk of gestational diabetes, higher risk of autism, schizophrenia and other problems. Those risks are small but still there.

OP, I only have two because my #2 didn’t sleep through the night until he was 4 years old and I have a DH who travels frequently for work. There was no way to add a third. Even now that they are 6&8, life is so hectic. Everything is a constant rush for me.
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 23:40     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
I have 4 in just under 5 years - no twins. We are terrorized now that they are all teens/college bound but I wouldn’t change it. Sure my body is shot but I see women everyday who are my age (45) and look the same and have less kids. Good body or more kids? Is that even a real question?
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 23:26     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^Mind you, I truly do love having three! Absolutely love it and I am grateful every day. But as I said, a huge part of our decision to have three and the reason I enjoy it is that we were lucky to have the chance to choose flexible positions that still pay reasonably well. We're not DCUM wealthy, but we're comfortable, and happy with what we have.


Do you think if they were spaced out more it'd be harder or easier long run? I of course could wait for longer to go for a 3rd, just based on previous experience I feel like it may take years so would want to get moving, but if we get moving I need to actually be prepared for the chance it happens quickly?

Is it the 3rd that makes it substantially more challenging or do you feel like 2 would be as close to as difficult on your own for that time of day?


I’m a mom of 3, and a little confused by this question. Are you actually asking if having two kids is the same level of difficulty as having those two kids plus a baby?? Of course 3 is more difficult than 2! My third was born when when my second was almost 4 and first was 5. I personally could not have handled a third any sooner. Two under two is no joke. You won’t fully get it until you have two mobile children.


Yes this exactly! I’m the PP.
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 23:25     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
Anonymous wrote:I am about to deliver my third, but mine are 5.5 and 3.5. This was by choice (got pregnant first try) because I could not even entratain the idea of a third until my second was 2.5 (she was a very difficult baby). If I were you I would wait a little bit, but also it sounds nice to have three kids all at similar stages in life (same school, same games, same schedules, etc.). We have this with my eldest, but this baby will obviously be at a very different stage in life for a while.


Same here, except mine are 6, 4 and new baby. I always wanted three but after a very easy first baby, our second was much more difficult. She was easier as a toddler but I found 3 and 1 to be the hardest time of all - no sitting down ever! Like the PP it wasn’t until the younger one was almost 3 that we felt ready to try for our third. It took about 6 months to happen. (And we had similar issues as you with the first but not the second or third)
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 19:11     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^Mind you, I truly do love having three! Absolutely love it and I am grateful every day. But as I said, a huge part of our decision to have three and the reason I enjoy it is that we were lucky to have the chance to choose flexible positions that still pay reasonably well. We're not DCUM wealthy, but we're comfortable, and happy with what we have.


Do you think if they were spaced out more it'd be harder or easier long run? I of course could wait for longer to go for a 3rd, just based on previous experience I feel like it may take years so would want to get moving, but if we get moving I need to actually be prepared for the chance it happens quickly?

Is it the 3rd that makes it substantially more challenging or do you feel like 2 would be as close to as difficult on your own for that time of day?


I’m a mom of 3, and a little confused by this question. Are you actually asking if having two kids is the same level of difficulty as having those two kids plus a baby?? Of course 3 is more difficult than 2! My third was born when when my second was almost 4 and first was 5. I personally could not have handled a third any sooner. Two under two is no joke. You won’t fully get it until you have two mobile children.
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 17:36     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
No way to know how you are going to feel about this until number two comes along. Give yourself some time to breathe - no decisions yet.

If you do it, set aside a little each month once you get pregnant for a night nurse to get you through the first few weeks.
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 17:36     Subject: Re:3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Op, aren’t you tired if you just gave birth?

If your kids are 21m apart and it sounds like you want third to be 18m after second.

That really sounds hellish to me. I would only do that if you plan to stay home AND have a full time nanny.

Most parents I know have a 2 year gap between kids and when kids are 1 and 3, it is challenging. Can’t imagine having a newborn too. God that sounds awful.


Just to clarify - my first took 5 years, a couple losses, and fertility treatments to have. We have a Dx that makes natural conception odds low at least statistically though it has happened twice (one of the losses and #2). My second happened 3mo after my period came back on - so clearly we can get pregnant on our own even if it's a very long shot.

For a 3rd we would likely be on a long journey that requires certain stops along the way like trying for 6 months with no success and then moving on to IUI for 3 rounds before insurance will cover IVF which can easily be a multi year process. So if I wait until #2 is 2+ its very possible we won't actually have #3 for several more years if at all. I'm not specifically trying for a very short gap - more if we want a third given my age and our challenges we will need to get moving sooner rather than later on what is likely a very looooong process, but given our experience with #2 I want to make sure I'm prepared for and able to handle the slim possibility it could happen quickly.


It's hard to answer this, as you know best what you can handle. But with 3 kids who are that small, I would assess your finances and caregiver support if you're not a SAHP already. 2 is a lot harder than 1, and 3 kids that small would really do me in.
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 17:34     Subject: Re:3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
Anonymous wrote:That's a huge toll on your body.


+1 I don't get how women pop recover so quickly post-partum and pop out kids within a year of each other. I certainly didn't. But more power to those who can do this.
Anonymous
Post 02/12/2019 17:32     Subject: 3 kids in 4 years - bad idea?
I’m about to have my 3rd in 2.5 years. Definitely doable!