We had two in part because we wanted another and in part we wanted to give our older child someone he would have to socialize with since socializing and thinking beyond his immediate needs were such a struggle for him. It was great for him initially, but now that they are bother older they annoy the heck out of each other most of the time. causing more stress for the whole family. Even with therapy, the older one still struggles and will go all day not talking to his peers, but will eagerly converse with adults.

Our DD has always had emotional issues (before our second was born so it wasn’t because of him). Once her therapist asked her to think of a reason to stay alive in those dark moments when she needed something to hold onto, and she said her little brother is her reason. They love each other so much.

So not in our case, no.

This is going to be very different for everybody. I will say I would not have a second thinking that it will help your first. That is how it was for us but you never know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say so. In our case, our second child is autistic. We have devoted a lot of money, time, and energy for him. I think having an autistic brother will negatively impact my daughter’s life, esp later. I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong.

I have a disabled brother, and the experiences I had growing up shaped the person I am today. I am now a Special Ed teacher, and I have so much empathy for the families. I wouldn’t trade my brother or my experiences for anything. Your daughter will be fine.

I’m the previous PP you quoted. I hope so. Right now, it’s too early to tell how severe his autism would be. As a parent, I’m thinking waaay ahead in the future where he might be a burden to her when we are long gone. It’s something that every parent of disabled kids worried about.

I'm pregnant with my 3rd and worried that this one will overall negatively impact the first 2 given they already had the benefit of a sibling. We will see

I know a family with 5, the oldest (10) has autism and is nonverbal, the next oldest (9yo girl) has to take on a ton of work caring for her younger siblings. I can see why they might have wanted 3 in this situation (hope for a neurotypical sibling for the girl) but can't fathom why they kept going after that....every additional child has come very much at the detriment of the oldest 2 - the first b/c they don't have much time or money to best help the child with autism and the second b/c she has to pick up so much responsibility at a young age. the 3rd and 4th are entirely lost in the shuffle

#1 is autistic and being the younger sibling of an autistic kid has been wonderful for #2. #2 is wildly empathetic and caring and wants to go into social work or similar. I think it has definitely made her a better person. It helps that #1 is very high functioning academically and is in college and is likely to have a job in computer programming sitting in a quiet corner somewhere so #2 won't have to support him or anything. If anything, he'll send her money to help her in her low-paying but very important social work. They love each other even though they're very different and take good care of each other. When #2 came out 2 years ago she indicated that she had actually told her brother a whole year before. So they definitely talk about personal things even though I'm not always aware of it. Best thing I ever did was have 2 kids -- and then stop!!! 3 would have been really tough with the autism!

I don't know, they are too little now to tell. We had an only and then wanted one more and got twins. They are close in age and seem to get along well, but I don't have a crystal ball to see how they'll be in the future.

I have an only in part because my two brothers have caused nothing but problems for me and my parents. Always wished I had been an only or never born.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who say "no" are delusional.

I don't know any family where having a second kid didn't impact the first one.

They definitely get less attention from parents. Most drop out of some of their activities or never do the ones they wanted to because driving them to those is hard with a little kid in tow. There is less money to spend, so they miss expensive camps, expensive activities, sometimes they lose private school education. I could go on and on.

But are those expensive activities what really make for a deeply fulfilling and loving childhood? I would argue no. If the question is whether a second reduces the amount of time parents have for a first child, of course unequivocally no one would argue against that. But I guess we all view what is a “positive” or considered an “impact” for kids differently and for me, those things aren’t necessarily it so aren’t a huge factor in the equation. My second is a newborn and woof, getting used to the new balance is hard but I still think even my 3 year old would say it’s already been net positive for him. A long road to go to see if that sticks and it’s possible it won’t depending on second kids needs, but he adores his very colicky little brother!

Ha this is exactly us, down to the same ages and the colic too