Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

... To consider a second child purely to give our son a sibling?

71 replies

Brassrubbing · 14/10/2014 21:07

We never planned to have children, then changed our minds and had our son (now two and a half) just before I turned 40, with no thought of ever having another. Now we've discovered we've both been worrying separately about being older parents who live in a different country to our families, in case our son is left alone comparatively young in life, and have both wondered whether we should try to have another child for DS's sake?

To be honest, I dread the idea - I found having a baby enormously difficult and isolating, and I would be at least 43/44 when this baby was born, possibly older, with increased health risks to both the baby and me. Also, my career and psychological health took a horrible hit since having DS, though he's utterly lovely. My husband currently earns 90% of the household income in a high-pressure, 6 days a week job, so the burden would fall almost entirely on me.

The only real argument for having another is for DS's sake. He's a sociable, lively child who flourishes in company, and would be ideally temperamentally suited to being one of eight. I wouldn't worry if we lived near extended family, but none of ours live in the UK and all his cousins are almost a generation older than him.

Am I completely mad to even be considering this?

OP posts:
YouAreAMouseInAMaze · 14/10/2014 22:00

I personally wouldn't bother. I am an only child as is my OH. Neither of us mind in the slightest. I will probably try to have more than one child, but that is for my own sake, not because it's bad to be an only child.

Original poster
Brassrubbing · 14/10/2014 22:02

It does make me feel bad, Choc, but that's hardly your fault, and I honestly understand where you are coming from - thanks.

OP posts:
Original poster
Brassrubbing · 14/10/2014 22:04

Stille, I'm sorry. That must be very hard. Those kinds of risks have also been something I've been thinking seriously about.

OP posts:
Scholes34 · 14/10/2014 22:10

We always said DC1 was for the grandparents, DC2 was a sibling for DC1 and DC3 was for us! Everyone's experiences with their own children or in their own childhood are different, and it's so difficult to offer advice.

parallax80 · 14/10/2014 22:15

In no particular order:

a) my dad was one of three siblings. He and sibling #2 both died in their 50s, so sibling #1 is still responsible for elderly parent on her own despite having had siblings

b) completely different scenario but our DC2 turned out unexpectedly to be DC2 & 3

fizzymittens · 14/10/2014 22:20

I would have LOVED to have been an only child.

onedamnthingafteranother · 14/10/2014 22:21

Our second son has a learning disability. He and no 1 son have never got on, it's like having two only children and as far as "being there" for each other when we are gone, that's going to be a one-way street.
Bear in mind, there are no guarantees.

mandy214 · 14/10/2014 22:22

Its a tough call in your circumstances, and it really does depend on your family dynamic. I think lots of people are influenced by what they had growing up. I am a twin and couldn't imagine life without a sibling (now I'm in my 40s) and everything that goes with that - the memories, the family interaction, the support in dealing with parents who are now in their 70s.

I think there are 2 different issues for your DS maybe - the long term advantage of having a sibling (for grown up children I mean), but secondly the immediate play date - which kind of back fired for us. I had DD2 predominantly because I wanted DD1 to have a sister, but in fact for probably 3 or 4 years, DD1 was most put out that DD2 was here. They have only really become "sisterly" in the last 18 months or so (now 9 and 5). DD1 couldn't have cared less until then.

Good luck with whatever you decide but I agree that it has to be a decision which takes into account all of your needs. It is very admirable to do it just for your DS but you need to consider you and your DH in this too.

Rainbunny · 15/10/2014 00:03

OP - I have had the exact same internal debate and I haven't even become pregnant with #1 yet (doing IUI this month). I'm 39 and I can honestly say it took me this long to get to the place where I really wanted to have children (including the time it took to meet my DH). Just like you were at this point we are pretty decided that (if were are lucky enough to have one child) it will be "one and done."

More and more people are sticking at one child these days, for good reasons too. I also live in a different country from my family and my DH's family are a 9 hour drive away, so lack of support is part of it along with the cost of childcare and, well the future costs associated with child rearing. Frankly I don't have particularly wonderful memories of having an older sibling - just because you have more than one child it's no guarantee that they'll be close or even friendly with each other. I also suffer from vague financial anxiety about the future even though I earn decent money and my DH earns an excellent salary. On paper we can certainly afford more than one child but these recent years of a turbulent economy and the growing inequality in society make me afraid of the financial risk of having extra children.

I don't want to tell you what to do but either way but trust your instincts on this. Have another child for you, not because you worry for your DS - he'll be fine and sounds like a very happy child in any case.

whois · 15/10/2014 08:18

I don't think you're being U, but just to give a sibling when you don't have a burning desire for another DC I think would be a mistake.

They might not get on and fight and be jealous during childhood. They might just be indifferent to each other.
They might move away from each other as adults and have little to do with each other.
Your second may have some kind of disability which would take an awful lot of your time and energy and would mean DS1 had more responsibilities and caring burden not less.

Or of course you could have a perfectly healthily lovely DC2 and they could be th best of friends. I'm just not sure the risk is worth it when you aren't 100% committed to the idea of a second child as an individual not just a sibling.

LIZS · 15/10/2014 08:20

There is no guarantee they would be close or even get on .

MorelliOrRanger · 15/10/2014 08:27

We had dd1 after a long time trying and the stress of that meant I was unwilling to try again, however when she was 4, I suddenly thought about how close me and my sibling are so tbh having a sibling for dd1 was our top reason we had another one although not our only one.

Best thing I ever did, they are great friends (aged 7 and 2), and dd2 is just wonderful.

ohweeeell · 15/10/2014 08:34

I understand where you are coming from and I have 1 DD myself so have mulled it over. Ultimately, unless both parents really want another I think it can be difficult, I know people who really wanted a second, and find it hugely challenging at times, so if it is something you are doing for the benefit of someone else I imagine it would be even harder. I understand also where you are coming from also with finding having 1 DC hugely challenging, i felt almost exactly the same as you describe.

A previous poster mentioned having sole responsibility of looking after her elderly parents, I worry about this for my DD. However, I myself have a sibling who is now NC with my parents, so even though I have a sibling and I speak to them, the duties of looking after our parents in their dotage will fall to me. i also know other families with 2 siblings where one has moved abroad and again the responsibility falls to the DC who lives closer to home to help their parents in old age, just sayings there are no guarantees.

moaningminnie2 · 15/10/2014 08:40

The decision may well be out of your hands- becoming pregnant and staying pregnant at 43/44 may not happen for you and even if it does the risk of congenital defects is high.

Rebecca2014 · 15/10/2014 08:50

I know many adults who were brought up as only children and I never once heard them complain. When you do die, your son surely will have his own family at that point to support him and even if you did have another child, there are no guarantees they would get along or that both of your children would bother looking after you when you were elderly anyway!

moxon · 15/10/2014 08:50

brassrubbing Are you me? Because I can only assume you must be...? Confused

Original poster
Brassrubbing · 15/10/2014 10:21

Moxon, if you're anywhere remotely close to the east-ish midlands, come over for coffee. Comforting to know I'm not alone in tormenting myself with this dilemma.

Moaning, you are quite right - I tend to have an over-sanguine view of my own reproductive capacities, because I conceived the first time we tried, and sailed through a pregnancy when I was about to turn 40. There's no guarantee that will happen again.

I hope we can ensure that no undue responsibility for his elderly parents falls on DS by making intelligent decisions ourselves beforehand. I worry more about what someone else said about him feeling, on our deaths, that he will feel his entire past has vanished, and all his immediate family is gone.

I do realise there are no guarantees that I would manage to have a child, far less a healthy child, or that he/she and DS would get along and be companions if I did. He is a happy child. I think I am just ambushed by the unexpected love I feel for him, and I want to give him the best start I can. (I am myself the child of parents who never put themselves out for me, and were too afraid of the world to intervene in it for my sake, which I know has had an impact on how I parent.)

That other thread running at the moment about moving house when the children are happy where they are has also touched a chord with me. For almost 40 years I put myself and my career first always, then when DS was a baby, I swung to always putting his basic physical needs first, as you do - now he's growing, I need to work out how to balance his needs with mine and DH's.

Thanks, everyone. I am reading and thinking about everything that's been said.

OP posts:
Thebodyloveschocolateandwine · 15/10/2014 10:34

We had 4 because we wanted 4.

It's a crazy reason to have another child if you don't want them.

We know lots of only children and they are absolutely fine.

Siblings arnt necessarily close or even like each other.

You never know what's around the corner anyway and if you are happy why change things.

Thebodyloveschocolateandwine · 15/10/2014 10:37

And who was the dramatic twat who banged on about your ds loosing his past and his immediate family are gone!!!!

Seriously he could marry at 18 and have 5 kids himself. Ignore ignore.

Thebodyloveschocolateandwine · 15/10/2014 10:40

Sorry to support ohweeeel I have a sibling who lives the other end of the country so all the looking after my elderly parents falls to me. She would be hopeless anyway bless her.Hmm

LillianGish · 15/10/2014 10:57

I think having a baby to give your child a sibling is as good a reason as any to have another child - not saying you should, just that that is a pretty compelling reason. Your situation strikes a chord with me because we also live abroad and move around frequently. I have two dcs and I think one of the things that makes moving so is easy is that they have each other. It is always tough to leave friends behind, but essentially they always takes their best friend with them - each other. No guarantees of course that they will be best friends, but I do think a lot of what binds my two (girl and boy now 13 and 11) is that shared experience of moving around, living in different places and learning different languages. I think it is impossible to imagine having another child when you just have one, but I can honestly say in my case that two is SO much easier than one. You don't have another only child who relies on you to provide entertainment you have two who entertain each other - everything is easier.

Sweetasstevia · 15/10/2014 11:04

No don't do it just to make company for your son. My two fight like cats and dogs - seriously, moments of tranquility and friendship between them are rare. It might change I know (they are 6 and 3) but currently DS1 gets far more from his relationships with friends and tells me continually he doesn't want his brother Hmm.

Littlef00t · 15/10/2014 11:30

My brother and I fought like cats and dogs the whole time growing up, I'm not sure how my parents coped.

skylark2 · 15/10/2014 11:36

"all his cousins are almost a generation older than him. "

Then isn't he likely to shortly have multiple first-cousins-once-removed who aren't much younger than he is?

I think it's quite normal to have a second child at least partly so the first has a sibling - we certainly did. But it would be odd to have one when the parents actively didn't want them but thought the sibling issue was more important.

FreckledLeopard · 15/10/2014 11:40

Whilst it's probably not the best reason to have another baby, from my own experience as an only child with older parents, I do wish I had a sibling to share the burden.

My father died when I was 17 and my mother has dementia. I'm now 32 and all the responsibility falls on me. It's not a great situation to be in.

Having said that, I suppose I could have had siblings who wouldn't have helped share the burden. My mother effectively had to deal entirely with her elderly mother, despite having three other siblings.

Perhaps if you're sufficiently wealthy you could ensure there is some type of brilliant care in place for you and your husband for when you get old and infirm?