How many kids is too many???

[applesandbananas1]

More and more I see families have 3+ kids and it blows my mind… in this day and age I cannot fathom navigating parenting of more than 2 kids… it only gets harder as they grow up and I think loads fall into the trap of adding to their family while the older kids are still very young and the challenges of a 21st century childhood are less noticeable.

@applesandbananas1 I think a good starting point is what do children need.

They need love, warmth, food and attention and ideally their own space/privacy too as they get older.

So too many kids would be when you cannot offer those things to your children.

I have 3 kids but only because baby number two was twins.

We both work full time so can offer the kids food, love, and their own rooms, but I often feel I dont give them as much individual attention as I would like.

I think a lot of women feel a desire to be a mother and it’s reasonable to assume 1 or 2 will be manageable with two parents. Obviously there as exceptions. The joy of being a mother twice and a sibling for each other - to me that risk is rational. I don’t know how to ascertain if going beyond 2 would mean “more than I / you can cope with” - like, how do you know?!

I really think that you are being overly judgmental. Some parents are fantastic at and love having one child. Some parents wish they’d had none at all.

This is in no way a stealth boast (more like a boast boast) but DH and I made great parents of (now adult) children. Four of them. Two with SEND. It hasn’t always been easy (and we’ve never been skiing) but I don’t think any of them have been lacking in attention or love.

So that’s us. The next set of parents of four may be dismal. You just can’t know.

That is lovely to hear. I am sure you are very proud. Can I ask you, as you’ve had first hand experience of this, how did you know that you would be able to cope with 4 children? Did you just know or what were you considerations?

I’d have liked two but things didn’t work out that way. As a lone parent, one is manageable. Don’t see the need for 3+ as the planet can’t support it.

@applesandbananas1 we didn’t. But then how do you know you can cope with one?

Like I said earlier, I think a lot of women feel an urge to be a mother. Perhaps that’s enough. I certainly did and knew it was something I wanted to do. Then I wanted to do it again to give my daughter a sibling. Beyond that, I find it hard to know if the risks outweigh the benefits.

Right - well others say we should be ignoring that urge and having none as they view is only sensible thing and other view siblings are determemtal and it people nmust have a kid they should only have one.

So for some people one is too many, two is too many or like you more than two is too many. Some people don't cope with one some don't cope with two some cope with many more.

For us we knew we wanted three - not one as DH or two as our parents - waited till we had resources to do and after each one reflected and debated then decieded. I'm not advocating three for everyone or even kids for everyone it's a very individual choice dependent on many factors. I didn't find it a harder choice than the first two.

I read a piece that argued that most people don't even hold a baby until they have their own. Many people don't know what young children are like, or have much to do with them. Maybe due to smaller families in general? Could that be part of the issue with people having a child, then finding they don't like being a parent?

I had lots of experience with young children and had worked with teenagers, so I knew I enjoyed them at all stages. I knew what they entailed. I loved parenthood from the beginning.

I think parenthood was more of a shock to my DH who had no idea just how full on it was. He hadn't had experience with young children and did find it a bit of a struggle to adjust.

My sibling didn't have any, so I think the numbers balanced out for the planet in the end.

Don't have more children than you have hands. We have four, so everyone can have a handhold.

I suppose once you have more than three, you're getting a bigger car, etc., so maybe they see it as 'well, what's one more?!' My little cousin accidentally had 4, and finds it very funny, because they had 2, then she had a 'surprise' pregnancy, which ended up as twins! She says it's chaos anyway. 😀

😂

Like you say it absolutely depends on what makes you happy. I could say it's absolute madness to just have one (lonely kid) ....and personally I absolutely did not want to have an only child. Our girls are so happy to have a sibling.... more laughter/fun....but it's absolutely a personal choice

It's so individual. My DB and SIL had two and were managing well. They had a third and claimed that it tipped them over the edge. However, once they got through the baby stage they've been fine and great parents to their three DC. It helps that #3 is the easiest of the lot.

More than you can afford is too many

One!

@applesandbananas1 yes for me it would. Another high risk pregnancy one that would require me to take medication throughout is more than I am willing to put myself through. Another child would mean time away from work (at least for a while) and I'm self employed so have to consider finances. It takes me longer with each birth for recovery so that affects my ability to do pick ups and drop offs to and from school putting that on dh's shoulders as we don't have any family or close friends who could help. Another person adds to the laundry,household bills, the need for a bigger car. They require taking care of physically and emotionally which I am not willing or capable of doing without a personal cost to me. So yes a 4th for me would be more than I could cope with.

😆

For me, it would have been none. But two came along and I adore them both.

I still think I would have been happy without any.

Yep I don't know why you wouldn't just have one or two healthy happy kids and then breathe a sigh of relief. Why keep rolling the dice? I wouldn't necessarily be thinking the parents couldn't cope-although I expect the man might struggle, you see it on here all the time. People saying they had 4 or 5 kids and how were they supposed to know circumstances would change or the bloke would take off...

But aside from that I'd just be thinking well I've just massively increased the odds of accidents, illnesses, mental health issues etc. my parents had three and tbh at least one of my siblings were lucky to make it to adulthood! Lots of accidents. Thankfully I'm very risk-averse, probably saved my parents sanity...

What are the chances of having 4 or 5 completely well-adjusted kids you don't have to worry about? And realistically they'll be 40+ before you'd even know. A few of my brothers friends have ended up divorced, in debt, depressed and back living with parents in middle age. I think a lot of people are just not very good at calculating risk and just assume "everything will work out".

I think your phrasing is revealing - "navigating parenting", "academic pressures", "juggling their hobbies and friendships" etc. I think the fact is that in ages past, when having 6 or 8 or 10 kids was common, people just... didn't. There wasn't much concept of "parenting" (kids did as they were told, end of) or much sense of there being anything to "navigate". Kids just got sent to school and what happened after that was down to them - if you got in trouble at school you'd be in trouble at home, but that was it really. It wouldn't have occurred to parents to involve themselves in the kids' friendships or hobbies. Nowadays everybody thinks they need to involve themselves in everything their kids do and it's child abuse if you make them share a room and all that. If you're going to spend your life snowploughing and managing their every emotion for them and thinking you have to give them attention or material things whenever they want them then yes, I could see how you'd struggle to cope with more than two. But you don't HAVE to be that kind of parent; it's a choice. Personally I think the modern culture of "parenting" is producing a lot of pathetic young people who can't seem to transition successfully into acting like adults, managing their own problems, having confidence in their ability to cope with setbacks etc. Others don't have to agree. But I don't think kids of today are necessarily at a disadvantage if they're one of five and they have to wait their turn, work a problem out for themselves, walk if they want to get somewhere, work and save if they want to buy something, move out and spend some time in a crummy bedsit if they want to stop sharing a room, etc. It builds resilience and confidence and a work ethic. Some of the smartest and most hardworking people I know are from big families.

Love this, so true.

I have 2, would have loved 4/5 but could not afford it. I have 6 cousins who are 6 siblings, they've split in half as to who's speaking to who, it's a nightmare. Mine are now 26 and 21 and they still cost a fortune!!

Only the very rich or the very poor can afford to have families of three plus children

Absolute rubbish. I have three children (all adults now), and we are a bang-on average income household, so neither rich nor poor. You just cut your cloth, don't you? We moved to a cheaper area to have a larger house. We managed to do without childcare as we worked around the kids, and one of us was usually home so we could give them plenty of attention. We had holidays, both camping and budget abroad. We paid about half of the kids driving lessons, didn't buy them a car, phones etc were for birthday/christmas presents. Anything they needed we paid for, anything they wanted, they had to save for from pocket money/gifts, and getting Saturday jobs at 16.

But they were very loved, and not in anyway deprived. Often on mumsnet, there seems to be this obsession with providing everything a child could wish for - a bedroom each, a car at 17, the latest clothes/trainers/phones/tech. Kids don't absolutely need all that - yes it's nice if you can afford it, but what they need more than anything is love, security and family. And you don't need to be very rich to provide that.