Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the best age gap is 4-5 years, and never more than two kids. That way each kid gets to experience being the focus of their parents attention, there is minimal sibling rivalry, they have the benefit of a sibling while also being forced to develop independent social skills, you don’t have to pay for their college tuition simultaneously. Just my two cents.

This is exactly what bred sibling rivalry in two families I know. Kid 1 is four, used to individual attention (read: spoiling), and then gets shunted aside for the baby. Teaching a kid to expect that level of individual attention just to take it away is mean.

if you're "shunting aside" a child of ANY age for a new baby...yeah, you're going to have issues.

+1

I started trying again when older one turned 2, so I have 3 biological kids spaced exactly 2 years 9 months apart. This had nothing to do with an ideal spacing in concept but when I felt like I was ready to face another pregnancy (breastfed to ~2 for each kid). However, I never had fertility issues, so if I were you I would just go with what feels right to you.

Anonymous wrote:Our gap is 2 years 3 months and I feel like it’s too much of a gap. Some activities they don’t even overlap. School also is just together for a few years. I love our gap.

A lot of siblings aren't involved in the same activities. We let our kids choose, and they chose two completely different tracks (one is more athletic, the other is more artistic). Age really doesn't matter in this context.

The drop-off thing is definitely annoying when you have one in daycare and the other in ES, but as the kids get older and more independent, they'll be doing the bus so it's not an issue.

Our gap is 2 years 3 months and I feel like it’s too much of a gap. Some activities they don’t even overlap. School also is just together for a few years. I love our gap.

All other things equal, I would say 3. I think there’s a lot less chance of sibling rivalry and fighting.

I'm sure this is very dependent on the children so there's no answer to your question.

In my experience, however, my girls with a three year age gap play together much better and fight a lot less than the girls I know that are two years apart (I have two good friends who each have girls two years apart).

That said, it is probably just personality-driven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally think the best age gap is 4-5 years, and never more than two kids. That way each kid gets to experience being the focus of their parents attention, there is minimal sibling rivalry, they have the benefit of a sibling while also being forced to develop independent social skills, you don’t have to pay for their college tuition simultaneously. Just my two cents.

This is exactly what bred sibling rivalry in two families I know. Kid 1 is four, used to individual attention (read: spoiling), and then gets shunted aside for the baby. Teaching a kid to expect that level of individual attention just to take it away is mean.

if you're "shunting aside" a child of ANY age for a new baby...yeah, you're going to have issues.