2 vs 3 children..

[northernbird1988]

I'm 35 and I have a boy and a girl, the youngest being 2. Part of me would like another before I feel it's too late, but then being a family of 4 works fine and I'm not sure I want to add another into the mix.
How much harder is 3 kids vs 2?

So much harder.

We have an elder, then DTwins. I know twins make it disproportionately harder, but it's not the extra cost or sharing your time/resources at home as such, it's the way the world is geared up to families of 4 and under.

Table out? Seats 4. Family ticket? 2 adults, 2 kids. Hotel rooms? 2 adults, 2 kids. Three car seats across the back, then fitting everyone's paraphernalia and pushchair in the boot? Pain in the ass.

Two children can comfortably share things, a sofa, a room, whereas three can't. So many games are player one Vs player two, and so player 3 is always sat out for any of those.

Then there's the simple logistics of adults being outnumbered. All 3 are crying? Which one has to wait to be picked up and comforted?

That being said, I love our larger family, and whilst the twins are extremely difficult, they are extremely amazing in equal measure. If we'd had them first, no way would I have chosen another child on top. It is lovely at Christmas when we seem like such a house full, before anyone else even arrives.

Think hard though, because whilst there are beautiful moments, there are many "Jesus Christ why have we got so many children" moments too.

I didn’t find it much harder, the last one just got dragged along with what the others needed to do.
The hard thing was getting a car big enough for a baby seat, booster seat, plus another. And you usually end up in a holiday place for 6 even though there’s only 5 of you

For me it was much harder, mainly because my DC3 was the most difficult of the three when he was little - a terrible sleeper and a tricky toddler. He's lovely now, but three teens also has its challenges!

Northernbird I was, only today, thinking about posing this question on MN! Have an older boy (nearly 5), younger girls (nearly 2.5) and I'm broody for #3. I come from a large family and want the chaos. But our life is so neat right now, the kids get along, we can do man on man defence, we all fit in the house, in the car, I can see how flights and holidays will work. All that feels like a lot to give up for the dream of a full table for Christmas's to come. It's a tough one to weigh up!

What does your partner think? Mine is very much done, so that adds weight to the arguement. Though I always said i either wanted no children or three, so either way one of us is compromising!

Life is geared towards 2 children. Having said that, I had #3 after having twins, and I love having 3. My desire for a third baby was greater than my panic about 2 seats on theme park rides etc etc.

I had 3 in 4 years, so didn't feel that much harder than 2 at the time as it was just chaos years anyway. But with 3 you're outnumbered and have more children than hands, which isn't helpful.
It's more the practicality and cost. I didn't think about any of that. Didn't think about finances as we were on benefits and I grew up poor in a big household and it was just normal.

Now, with teenagers and the prospect of university costs, driving/cars, rooms for everyone (need to buy a 4 bedroom house as no one will be leaving home at 18 as I naively assumed would happen as that's what DH and I did), it seems a bit short sighted! We've got a much bigger income these days, but they cost so much more when they get older. Small children used hand me downs and had second hand toys and didn't notice. Teenagers, all different shapes and sizes and styles, this doesn't work!

DH and I floated the conversation about #3 the other day so I'm reading with interest!

I've not found it harder at all yet but my younger two are still in nursery. I found one to two absolutely awful though!

I don't think it is more difficult at all.
In fact, I probably "enjoyed" dc3 being a child most of all.

But mostly it will depend on the individual child - could be a really chilled baby or could be very high needs. Could have additional needs. Could be twins or triplets.

I love having three.

All the downsides seem small to me (happy to buy an extra theme park ticket- it's not like we go everyday!) and they are very short term inconveniences.

Long term - how many faces do you want around the table?

I think 3 it is easy from a "love" pov, but quite hard from a financial pov, as lots of other posters have said, you simply cannot do what you did - the world is not geared up for with a family of five as opposed to a family of four, Both in the early days, and later on, both can be very draining (I had two go to uni in the same year for example). I've got 4, Cars are OK for 3, but not 4. Supervising them becomes trickier, 2 parents, 2 children works OK, the second you have 3 or 4 you are literally outnumbered, and they need things at different times, so compromises have to be made all of the time, your time is never your own - and work sometimes has to go begging as you administer love and support to your offspring (mine could never have a bug simultaneously, it passed from one child to the next but a day or two apart), the last child also had colic - had he been my first I would not have had any more. You sort of don't know what you are going to get, and it is easy to get broody based on the children you have already had. Honestly, if you are not sure, I would not go for No.3, but good luck whatever you decide x

I went from one to three (twins) the early years were hard but I think that was more to do with having 2 babies at the one time, my eldest was 5 when they were born. I'm 40 my DS is 13 and my DTwins are 8. So all quite independent now. I'm 40. To be honest I'm glad the baby/toddler years are over, not that I didn't love them, just can't imagine being the age I am now with small children.

Not harder at all for us but all kids and situations are different so really hard to tell what it's going to be like, i had my 3rd at 35 and ours are 2 years apart.