Anonymous wrote:I would wait till #2 is here before devoting any time to thinking about this. You'll have a better sense one you know more about what #2 is like and how you feel about having more than one kid.

This! Mine are the same age spread as your first twice will be. We planned on a third with about the same spread. After the second was born, those plans came to a screeching halt!!

Mine are 15 mos apart and were both pretty easy babies. I spent the year after #2's first birthday weighing the pros/cons of a 3rd nearly every day. Then #2 turned 2 and got a lot more challenging, on top of an increasingly challenging 3 yr old #1 and I knew that I was done.

Easy babies don't mean always easy. You haven't even been through the 2s once. So, I'd recommend waiting on that decision until #2 is older.

Putting aside pregnancy/toll on your body, it is doable.

My oldest was 24 months when I had twins, so ours were even more closely spaced.

The cons are, of course, no sleep for an extended period when they are very young (which could be longer if you have singles), high cost of child care, logistical challenges when you go out or go way. You need a vehicle that accommodates three care seats, and need the patience to deal with significant needs of younger kids all day long.

However, the pluses include having kids closer in age who are more likely to share similar interests, less time with all the baby stuff around. Having kids more closely spaced makes it easier to get involved and stay involved at school (fewer major changes in between kids). You can do hand me downs with clothes, because they are less likely to be out of style. As a PP said, when they are younger, you can also sometimes send all of them to the same activities or camps, which makes things easier. I've spent years watching families with bigger age gaps between kids try to watch one kids' game while a toddler runs on the field or screams, etc. and that seems like hell to me. There are disadvantages of spacing kids out more.

For me, as hard as it was having three under three, those days when we were a unit were easier than now, with three older kids all running in different directions. Don't even get me started on dealing with orthodontia at the same time.

One thing I wish I had done better is giving more individual attention to my twins when they were younger, especially reading to them. During those early years, I was working and was in survival mode. I didn't spend as much time playing fun but education games and reading as I did with my oldest and I think it shows in terms of where they are academically. I gave it my all, but it was very taxing. So be prepared for that.

I have also found that those with parents and inlaws who are local and available to help have generally been less overwhelmed than those of us without them who do it all ourselves.

If you really want it, you can absolutely do it. I wouldn't trade my three for anything.

Three in 4 years isn't particularly close together. we had three in 18 months.

I will have 3 kids in a little less than 5 years (although the 3rd is due in two months so TBD on how it works out). The first two are nearly 3 years apart and the second two will be 20 months apart. I loved the 3 years apart for a variety of reasons, but even at 4.75 and 1.75 they are still in VERY different stages. I hoped to avoid that by having the other two closer together. I think if you want 3+ you need to have some close spacing in there at some point or else you are either extending the tough years over a very long time.

Anonymous wrote:My two have the same age difference as yours and I am absolutely exhausted. I have no time to myself. I can't imagine adding a third.

+1 Mine are almost 22 months apart. They're now one year and almost three. My first baby was an easy baby, second wasn't terrible but definitely needier. It's been an intense year, OP. Just wait until #2 is here and you won't be raring to go on #3.

I think it’s too hard on your body and risky for the babies to gestate before your body totally heals.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a few weeks out from delivering my 2nd and if we want a third (which we do generally but we're in survival mode right now so who knows) we need to decide by about 6mo pp so I can wean and start ovulating again and we can get to work on #3. There is a chance #3 will take several years or not be possible at all but there is also a chance we'll luck out right away and I'd get pregnant quickly (#1 took 5 years and lots of intervention, #2 happened in 3 months with no intervention which was shocking and great)

So I'm wondering how good or crazy it'd be to have 3 kids less than 4 years apart both in the little kid stage but also in the more middle / high school stage with all having activities and lives to juggle.

#1 and #2 are 21mo apart, #1 has been a very easy child since about 10 weeks (though I hear age 1-2 can be a fooler for a lot of kids), #2 is TBD in terms of temperament and needs

We both work (DH travels a lot for work, I have fairly reasonable hours) and have money for logistical / domestic help - so we can outsource things cleaning and meal prep as needed. It's very important to me though to have enough time for each child (eat dinner together, have time to read stories and play) so if the answer is the way to survive is hire more childcare, that wouldn't work for me

I'd love to hear the good and bad of 3 close together since I'll need to decide whether or not we could handle that before life has even really stabilized after 2. Thank you!

I’d do it if I wanted 3 or 4. My two are 15 months apart and now 2 and 3. I think it would harder to go back to the baby stage now than just keep on trucking through. I’m not all dramatic about being pregnant though. I also don’t freak out about a couple episodes of Sesame Street per day.

Of the four of us, the oldest three were all born within 3 years. November '73, July '75, and September '76. So we are, right now, 45, 44, and 43. LOL! It was actually the FOURTH baby (born in 1980) that was the hard one. My mom was a SAHM though so having 3 kids so close together was a bit easier to manage than had she been working.

It's doable. You just need to be prepared.

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is goooood luck. My first was an angel, easier baby in the world. So I had another baby right away and they are 18 months apart. Second had reflux. Say no more.

This was my story then I had a 3rd who truly is a charm or we figured out how to parent. But we are happy with our 3 in under 4 years and yes flexible jobs is key

All I can say is goooood luck. My first was an angel, easier baby in the world. So I had another baby right away and they are 18 months apart. Second had reflux. Say no more.

I’m the youngest of 3 - my brother was almost 4.5 and my sister was almost 3 when I was born. From a kid perspective it’s been nice. I don’t know how my mom did it and she was stay at home who had previously been a 2nd grade teacher. She said that she would have loved 3 more and it just was what she was cut out to do, but that the hardest was when we were old enough to have our own activities but not drive (11, 14, 16). In addition to family trips, my parents were great at encouraging individual interests to the point of taking us on 1:1 trips at times (I traveled with both my mom and my dad without siblings. My siblings did the same.)

I never felt a lack of time, love, or resources but my parents filled very traditional roles (stay at home vs long hours as a law partner). My DH is oldest of four - the first 3 were over 4.5 years and then another 3 years later. All 4 children feel their parents ran out of time, interest, energy and perhaps resources for the younger two. The third is very vocal about how hard it was for her and how much she always worried about her little brother.

If you think you have the capacity to love and pay attention to your children I’d go for it. My DH and I thought we’d wait to see what we thought of two before deciding. We work out of the house and have no help and two is kicking our butts. It’s getting a bit better - younger one just turned two - but we’re not considering a third.

Our oldest was 3.5 when the third was born. I was 30 when I married and wanted to have all my kids by the time I was 35 since we're Catholic and wouldn't abort for something like Downs' etc. Just seemed best to pop them out quickly and we luckily had no problem on that front.

Just sent our youngest to college and it all went by in a whirlwind. I worked for most of it and my husband deployed a lot which added a certain chaos to the equation. We also moved several times.

The upside: youngest two are girls, and they're barely two years apart and it was awesome to have them in the same girl scout troop, send them to the same camps, same synchro swim team, etc.
All three did a lot of actiivities together -- orchestra, swim team, etc. Especially when they were little, it was easy to just treat them as a unit and send them all to the same camp, classes, etc. Got a bit harder when they got older and became their own people.

THis happened by late middle school.

Personally, I like the rhythm of doing something intensively for a certain number of years and just digging in: Everybody learns to read in 3 years; everybody learns multiplication (and goes to Kumon) at the same time; everybody learns to drive; everybody takes Stanley Kaplan for SAT prep;
We dragged everybody along when we looked at colleges and the younger two were old enough to get something out of it, which made it easier subsequently when we looked for them. By the time we got to three, she knew she didn't want urban, big state school., etc.

Teen years took a toll on us -- we felt outnumbered, and it was hard having to be the warden for everyone for that number of years;
Now that they're in their 20's there's this weird thing going on where I"m starting to wonder if they're going to marry each other's friends. There were some weird dynamics with sleepovers starting in middle school since they were all so close in age -- my son was clearly interested in my daughter's friends and they were interested in him. THat was challenging!

I had 3 kids in just under 4 years (and one older child who was 8 years older than my twins). My twins were just shy of 4 years old when I had my singleton.

Those 3 kids are now 25, 25, and 21, so I can speak to the experience of having raised them. Mostly loved it, but the teen years were definitely an organizational challenge. For instance, they were in 3 different schools for 4 years (twins were in different high schools [1 magnet and 1 private], while younger DD was in middle school). That was a ton of driving around. My DH handled mornings & I handled pickups, and later my older kids drove themselves.

Extracurriculars also proved somewhat tricky, but we managed to go to all the kids’ games and whatnot. I love our family & was actually prepared to have had a 2nd set of twins, since I was using fertility meds.

LMK if you have any specific questions IRT this particular layout.

DC1 and DC2 are 21 months apart and DC2 and DC3 are 20 months apart. So when DC3 was born DC1 was 3.5 almost to the day. It definitely took a huge toll on my body and I am still recovering 3 years later. I was either pregnant or nursing for 4.5 years straight with very little break in between. The first 18 months or so was ROUGH to say the least. Once DC1 was older and didn't need us for every little thing it has gotten easier. Now that they are 3,4 and 6 life is pretty good and we have moments where I am surprised at how well they get along together.