Similar to Pie - what about 3 under 4 yrs old? (sorry bit long and boring)

[handlemecarefully]

A similar but slightly different question to Pie...

I've got a 16 month old dd. When her baby bro is born in April she will be 21 months.

Originally thought about 'scheduling' (don't laugh) my 3rd and last baby for circa 4 years time when dd will be about 5 ish, ds will be about 3.5 / 4ish...and I will be 39 whereas dh will be 45.

Now I am thinking bring it all forward (part of motivation is I want to make a career change which is likely to involve a period of retraining - thus childcare costs during retraining (when no salary coming in to cover them) will be easier when all 3 start school, as I will only need childcare costs for part of the day (couple of hours post school). However if I stick to original plan my 3rd born would not be in school until I am 43 (8 years away) and I don't want to defer retraining and new career that long.

In my new plan I would aim to get pregnant with 3rd child around October 2004...which would mean that by the time he/ she is born:

dd = 36 months
ds = 15 months
newborn= 0 months

With 3 of this age I would give up my current job as childcare costs would be prohibitive. Money would be tight but we could 'manage'. I would then start retraining for new career in 2007/8 (when 2 already in school and 3rd about to start)...I would be 39/40

Is this barmy? - we could cope financially and stuff with 3, but is it simply too much work with 3 little un's with these sort of tight age gaps. Will it drive me to an early grave? Anybody done this?

(P.S. anybody who remembers the thread from last week - I have seen the light and I'm not now getting a dog!!!!!)

My mum had me and then when i was 15 months, my twin sisters were born!! She seems to have loved every minute, so I'm sure you could cope. it would probably work better this way round for you as you'd be relatively young still whilst retraining and starting new job.

handlemecarefully- um- it depends on so many things. If all is well and all is normal and fine then yes I'm sure you'd be knackered but could cope (generally people do cope with whatever is thrown at them they don't have much choice), but remember there are no guarantees- you could have a child born with problems- plenty of us on here do and then all your best laid plans will go to waste. You could have very difficult babies and it could be nightmare, you could have very easy babies and it could be a breeze. No 3 could be twins.

Having 2 is very different to having one- why not wait and see how you feel and trhen make a desicions as to whether or not you could have another. Also depends on how important your career change is to you - it may not be feasable to do it with 3.

I just think no-one really knows how it will be with 32 or 3 or whatever becuase you don;t know what you;re going to get.

I used to babysit for a family with 4 under 4 - 2 boys about 18 months apart and then twin girls after a 2 year gap. Delightful kids but ran me ragged !! Definitely preferred it when the girls were babies as I would take them for a walk whilst their mum spent time with the boys. It really is difficult to keep tabs on them all at once unless you are really organised.

Good luck

my mum had my first brother when I was 22 months old, another one when I was 3 1/2 and a third brother when I was 6 so for a while she had 3 under 4. As far as I can recall, she coped admirably and enjoyed it, although I can remember her locking herself in the loo to get away from us occasionally. Also, although we did fight, we played well together too and had simmilar interests being close in age. Far from putting her into an early grave, my mum is one of the fittest, most active 60-odd year olds I know. She puts people 30 years her junior, me included, to shame regularly climbing Munros, helping with local charities and babysitting for her many grandchildren.
Why not see how you cope with two relatively close in age, when your son's born in April, before deciding when to have no 3.

my mum had my first brother when I was 22 months old, another one when I was 3 1/2 and a third brother when I was 6 so for a while she had 3 under 4. As far as I can recall, she coped admirably and enjoyed it, although I can remember her locking herself in the loo to get away from us occasionally. Also, although we did fight, we played well together too and had simmilar interests being close in age. Far from putting her into an early grave, my mum is one of the fittest, most active 60-odd year olds I know. She puts people 30 years her junior, me included, to shame regularly climbing Munros, helping with local charities and babysitting for her many grandchildren.
Why not see how you cope with two relatively close in age, when your son's born in April, before deciding when to have no 3.

Message withdrawn

I have 4 children, the last three have 4 years between them. It was and still is bloody hard work. Yes they are very close, play together, devoted to each other etc, but they also fight like cat and dog, scream and shout and it is never quiet! I wouldn't be without any of them, but would have liked a bigger gap. The gap between my oldest and the next one is 4y 8 m, which is good, though I think 3-4 years difference is best .

DD2 was due on eldest DDs 4th birthday. Inbetween I had DS1 who was 22 months old. As I had a full year before DD1 started school, I would say I found the first year the hardest.

I had planned the 3 of them close together as I didn't want large gaps - so I always had 2 in nappies at the same time.

Things got easier after a while - mainly after DD1 started school.

Now they are 4, 6 and 8 and I'm loving their ages at the moment. I'm glad that I had them so close together (although I didn't so much at the time!). We did plan a 4th but after nearly 2 years of trying and nothing happening, we decided to knock it on the head as I didn't want 3 close together then one of its own. We started trying when DD2 was 14 months old.

Another advantage of having them close is that it's easier to do the same activities with all of them as they have similar interests - whereas my friend has children with a large age gap and finds it difficult juggling the activities as suit each age group.

My DD was 5.5 when I had my 4th. The gaps are 19 mths between DD & DS1, then exactly 2 years, then 2years 1 week.

As everyone else has said, it depends on the personalities of each child & on how you cope. I found it hard to not be able to just go & put the washing out without one of them attacking another- that sort of thing. You can't reason with a baby not to hurt another baby.

Life is also very physical. At least 2 in nappies all the time (at one point I had 3 in nappies- not good!), & the elder ones aren't big enough to be left/amuse themselves if you've got to do something else. Then you have 3 car seats & the whole pram thing- double buggy & eldest walking; double buggy & youngest in sling?

The good thing is that their interests coincide, and I did manage to arrange naps so that they all went down at the same time. Bedtimes & bathtimes were also the same.

With hindsight I wouldn't do it again! It's very hard to give each child enough individual attention because as soon as you start to concentrate on one, the others react. Also we never managed to go out as a family because it was too hard. One stayed at home with the children while the other went out. (or we split them up). You will also find that no-one wants to babysit, & if you need emergency cover there aren't many people who will offer to have more than 2 (or perhaps that's just min? )

In the end it's down to you. Good luck!

Of course, that should be mine. Not min. (must preview!)

You comment about it being hard to give each child individual attention strikes home for me, Tallulah. I'm 3rd out of 4 children, with my db only 2yrs younger and I never felt I had enough attention. I think I still feel that lack now, as if anyone diverts my mums's attention when I'm trying to talk to her, I get "unreasonably enraged" as my teenager would say.

I have 2.5 yrs between DS and DD1 and 16 months between DD1 and DD2. Its hard work and very noisy. They fight and get very annoyed with each other. DD2 bears the brute of much of DD1s angry fits though. I have a headache by the end of the day. The girls demand a lot of attention and get jelous of each other. They are all lovely kids ON THEIR OWN!!! but put them together and they are a nightmare. They do love each other especially DS and DD2, and can play nicely. DS shares a room with DD1 and they loves coming downstairs in the morning and watching cartoons together.
I certainly wouldn't have had 3 under 4 again. But I supposed my situation is different with DS and DD1 having Cerebral palsy and learning problems.

Yes- its the attention thing that worries me and puts me off having a third. At the moment I feel as if I can manage- any more and I think I would be spread too thin. Especially as ds1 is going to continue to need lots of attention for many years to come (ever? eek!)

And two in nappies is a pain. I'm happy to think of a third as a possibility but comments from Suedonim and Tallulah- have convinced me it will remain a possibility unless things improve with ds1.

Thanks- you've kind of made my mind up- we are right to not jump in. Actually that's good to think of it like that. Thanks.

I've got 4 children - age 7, 6, 4 & 2 and can honestly say that it is great - they all play together, they have similar interests, never short of company (but they also like playing by thmeselves when they get the chance - probably because they're not by themselves all the time). They have the occasional spat that lasts maybe 5-10 mins. Sometimes it's noisy. Often it's messy - this might be better if I controlled it a bit more, perhaps. I haven't had any problems with sibling rivalry - they've all had plenty of chances to help me look after the babies and we do go out with all four although in the early days the planning was military. They do all sleep well and generally behave well. I would not have done it any differently. In fact, thinking about no.5, I wish the gap was not going to be so large - for various reasons no.5 is not on the agenda until 2005, which will mean a 4 year age gap which seems huge to me.

hmc, that is exactly the spacing between my 3, none of whom are at school yet.
It is hectic but I love it and would not want it any other way.

I think the biggest issue is safety, to be honest. I find that keeping proper tabs on mine, almost 2yo apart, is very hard work. Have been told off for not doing a good enough job in public playgrounds. The idea of having to watch 3 impulsive toddlers simultaneously... shudder. Plus I am lucky that my eldest has only rarely tried to beat up his sister; nowadays it's the 2yo who tries to beat up the 4yo, actually.

I heard of a lady who had twins through IVF... 6 weeks post-partem she discovers she's naturally pregnant, and of course, it turns out to be twins...!

I hadn't thought of the safety aspect, Zebra, that's something to consider, isn't it? Your tale of the IVF person reminded me that there's a women lives locally (though I don't know her myself) who had 6 children under 5!! She had twins, followed 18mths later by a singleton, 18mths later she had more twins, followed by another singleton. She's been a single mum for most of that time but from a posh family with pots of money so I assume they help out physically and financially.

Thanks to everyone who replied with their experiences and views.

It seems it can be done - but you need a lockable toilet (as per tabitha's mum)and a plentiful supply of valium.

As ppl suggest - I am going to see how I get on with no 2 before opting for number 3 ...but I like to plan in advance and half a rough strategy in mind ...hence the question. If I do have number 3 it will have to be in quick succession or not at all.

In my heart of hearts and for no rational reason, 3 children seems like a complete family to me. Perhaps because I am one of 3.

that's meant to be 'have a rough strategy' not 'half a rough strategy'!

My friend was another of those who went for number three (close together with nos 1 & 2) and yes - twins! - in a 21/2 bed house. She pretty much sank without trace socially. I think it's much better once they are all ready for school though.

Hmc - I've got a 3yr old and a 14mth old and I'm due at the end of June with a bit of luck. I must admit to being a bit scared but I always wanted 3 and I'm pushing it a bit age wise - 36 in June, so thought I would just go for it. I probably will go mad for a short time and not yet sure what to do about work........but just want another one......

TBH I think another factor is whether or not you can afford help. If you can pay for a lot of help then 3 would be fine, if not it's is much much much harder. (From looking at different friend's experience).

i think zebra's safety point is very good. It's the reaoson we are so limited in what we can do now with my 2. I can go somewhere where we don't have to wait and where ds2 can stay in the buggy. Otherwise forget it. With another I don't think I could go out at all with all 3.