Going from 2 to 3 kids is the hardest family size to transition into?

[scandicandi]

I have 2 kids (3 and 1 years old) and DH and I would love a third.

We found going from 0 to 1 kid traumatic and then amazing. Going from 1 to 2 has been easy and so enjoyable.

But AIBU to think going from 2 to 3 is a different ball game as you are outnumbered?

Would love to hear other people's experiences.

0-1 - quite overwhelming and quite a lonely time for me
1-2 (with not much of an age gap) - Armageddon!
2-3 - (with an gap of 8 and 10 years) - the best time ever

It does mean that days out can be quite expensive, we had to buy a bigger car, we lost our study to DC3 (first world problem) and we're ancient compared to his friend's parents, but it's been great. The eldest 2 are now 24 and 22, and the 14 year old loves his cool lifestyle driving about with them and getting spoiled rotten!

I had my three in 2.5 years wouldn’t change a thing, we planned all three they all got great and it was a doddle. X

In some ways 2-3 was better than 1-2, yes you are outnumbered but you are already used to juggling and this is just more juggling. Mine are older now but I do remember them arguing over who got to hold my hand as obviously one missed out.

Like you op, we found 0-1 hard and 1-2 easy. But SIL found 2-3 really bad. She's very organised and has a lot of help from family which we don't. It's slightly put me off the idea of a third if I'm honest!

It’s different for everyone as I found 2/3 quite easy 3/4 though has been horrendous and most days I’m just about surviving people say they just “slot” but 4 has been awful (but I’m a single parent so I’m sure that changes things)

@Cupcakegirl13

I found 0-1 ok 1-2 horrific and 2-3 the easiest of the lot !

Same

I think 2-3 is a bit harder for me. I found 0-1 and 1-2 easy.

Found 0-1 REALLY hard. 1-2 bliss. So many happy memories. Until my maternity leave finished with DS2 I was desperate for a third but we’d decided against it for financial reasons. Kids are 6 and 3 now and I am so happy we didn’t have a 3rd. I wouldn’t have coped. (As it happens I’m a single parent now but I also felt this way before we separated). I guess it depends a lot on things like how you find pregnancy, birth and postnatal, if you’re working, financial stability, how hands on your DH is, and if you have family nearby etc etc

Three was no bother, then fourth came around and wow. Now have four in totally different age groups and it’s hard

I had twins first and now I’m expecting my third. Everyone is saying how easy it will be to have just one baby, that the older two can help etc. but I’m preparing for WW3 in the same way I did when I had the first two. My twins are older now so I’ve also forgotten everything about babies. I’m going to have to read the baby books again.

Depends on the kids. If you have a baby that doesn't sleep and a toddler who climbs the walls then it's hard. If you have fairly easy, placid kids then it's a breeze

I found 2-3 the hardest too. 3-4 and 4-5 was easier.

0-1 hard but fine, 2-2 piece of cake, 2-3 SO difficult

That should say 1-2 not 2-2 of course

As others have said I found 0-1 fairly ok, a few wobbles here and there but the first couple of years were a breeze. Then #2 arrived and it's been downhill since then.

They are 3 and 5 now and it's just getting worse, having a 3rd would actually break me.

I have seen that 2-3 is easier than 1-2 and 3-4 easier still. I'm not sure I believe it but maybe that's because my kids are designed to really test me and others maybe not so much.

1-2 was the hardest for me. However oldest was under 2 and our baby had colic for 4 months and then went through a stage for about 4 years where only I could do things, "not daddy" which was exhausting.
We've got a really big age gap between number 2 and 3 though which probably made it easier.

2-3 is fine. It's just more of the same with a bigger car, fewer hotel options and enough laundry to sink a battle ship.

I found 0-1 much much harder than 1-2. Now pregnant with #3 so will see how it all pans out!

Tbh I found going from 1-2 easier than just having one. Dog and toddler entertained new baby as he always had something to watch. Going from 2-3 was a relative doddle although obviously a lot busier especially when had 5, 3 and a baby. You can still get three kids in a normal car. I loved having three - a lot of things are based on sets of two but you just work with it. Plus good when the DC are great at playing together and looking out for each other. Very happy we did it.

0-1 was easy
1-3 still fine with a 3 year age gap
3-5 with a 20-month gap was the most tiring. Four in nappies was not fun!

1 to 2 was hard for me. 2 to 3 was a breeze, 3 just slotted in.

Honestly I found 2-3 the easiest. 1 was obviously a huge life change, 1-2 and you have to learn to spilt your attention but by the time number 3 comes along you're adept at it. Number 4 meant we needed a new car and number 5 meant we needed a new house, so yeah, number 3 was a piece of cake in comparison.

You can get three kids in a car, especially as they get older. But that initial bit when/if you have one in a booster and one in a rear facing and all the baby paraphernalia in the boot that makes it a squeeze.

2-3 was a piece of cake.

3rd one just fitted in with life as it went on.

The oldest was 5 when last was born, so he was off at school, and middle one doing some nursery days. 5 is also old enough to not need buggy etc.

it’s hard for one adult to have 3 at once when they are very young.
Unless one of your kids is particularly high needs, this is just wierd. I was SAHM, dh out all day, we had no car for first 6 months, no online shopping, we just got on with it, it was fine.

@Cupcakegirl13

I found 0-1 ok 1-2 horrific and 2-3 the easiest of the lot !

Totally agree with this. Number 3 just slotted in.

It does get harder when they’re older though - I loved the early years but now the older two are teens it’s draining. I love my children but do find myself wishing we’d stopped at two.