Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

are we crazy to go for 3 under 5? have you done it and enjoyed it..or not.

53 replies

Noonki · 22/05/2009 21:46

I have finally persuaded DH to have one more baby!!!

we have a 2 year old and a 3 year old and a 12 year old DSS.

Is it really really harder to have three little ones than two?

How do you do it if you have?, and if you had your time again would you spread them out more?

all views most welcome

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

lockets · 22/05/2009 22:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

whyme2 · 22/05/2009 22:46

It seemed to get a lot harder when DD1 started school . . or at least more complicated.

lockets · 22/05/2009 22:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

whyme2 · 22/05/2009 22:54

Yes, DD2 starts this sept, then I've got a year break before DS and then hot on his heels, DD3.
It just seems ot add to the madness, having to do library books, spellings, paying money at correct time and in correct amount and of course having to have everyone up, dressed and breakfasted before 8:15am.
At least warmer weather means no more gloves. (sigh)

lockets · 22/05/2009 22:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

lockets · 22/05/2009 23:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

psychomum5 · 22/05/2009 23:02

I have had five under 8.

3 under 4 at one point.

it was hard.

in fact, at times (when DH was working away especially), it was HELL, and I rang him threatening VERY BAD THINGS several times. he must have believed me and panicked as at least once a week while he worked away I would have a take-away man tunr up at the door with food......

looking back tho, I would not change it and would in fact do it again, they are lovely together (I say lovely...........hormones ignored they are lovely)

whyme2 · 22/05/2009 23:10

Having just one dc seems such a long way off now. .
There are hellish days, like when they all had D&V and I sat up all night cuddling children on the sofa and holding plastic tubs to collect sick in . . .
But mostly they are nice children and I wouldn't change things at all.

SnowWoman · 22/05/2009 23:13

I had 4 under 6, roughly 2 years apart. We found going from 2 to 3 was pretty straight-forward, as long as you could get 3 childseats in the car! DD3 meant we had to trade up to an MPV.

Yes it's hard work, but to be honest we didn't want just one child, and we were running out of time as our children were born when I was between 34 and 40. That's just the way it worked out for us, and we are lucky to have them.

We are going through a less frantic phase just now - but once the homones start kicking in life will be interesting....

whyme2 · 22/05/2009 23:17

Ah yes, we have four teenagers to look forward to.

lockets · 22/05/2009 23:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

whyme2 · 22/05/2009 23:24

and only one bathroom.

psychomum5 · 22/05/2009 23:30

we have two teens at the moment

tis fab

and we have the one bathroom (altho we do have a downstairs toilet.....)

PMT is the killer, especially when three girls plus their mum has it

whyme2 · 22/05/2009 23:33

But are you in sequence???

psychomum5 · 22/05/2009 23:35

well..........

I say no

DH says yes

periods are not in cinq (the are, then not.......tis more that mine are fucked due to endo, and DD1 being teen and just settling.....(YKWIM), but the PMT IS merged.

Clary · 22/05/2009 23:35

I had 3 under 4 actually

Well it used to make people gasp but I would make this face in my head

It was fine. I had a year off work with DS2 (no 3) - DS1 and DD turned 4 and 2 when he was a couple of months old. When DS1 went to school I went back to work.

I would not deffo not spread them out more. I never needed a double buggy, but otoh smallish gaps meant I never had that "no buggy, no nappies" time. It must be so hard to give that up. I have a couple of pals with 5yr gaps - that would be like me having another baby now (DS2 is 6) - oooooh no I couldn't do that

DS1 and DS2 have played together as boys for a while now, and DD and DS2 as roommates and buddies. They are all so close. When DD was away the other weekend DS2 took his pillow and teddy and went to sleep in his big brother's bed - ahhhhh.

whyme2 · 22/05/2009 23:39

All mine (except baby who has never expressed an opinion) (yet)find it a real treat to be allowed to sleep in the same room, same bed if they had their way. Very sweet.

Psycho, My dh isn't looking forward to combined pmt.

psychomum5 · 22/05/2009 23:42

my DH is (not quite as we speak die to it being dark ourside) is building an extension that includes his very own escape hatch shed for such times as the combined PMT!

it also contains a futility room for me for the same reason

Suedonim · 23/05/2009 00:18

My nephew and niece had four dc under four - two children then twins. It's been hard work for them, though I'm sure they wouldn't have it any other way.

The constant illnesses have been the worst aspect, I think. The older two would bring D&V bugs and colds home from nursery and generously pass them round the family inc mum and dad. The children all had chicken pox when the babies were less than a month old and the twin boy then had shingles when he was 10mths!

They just have a two-bedroom house with one bathroom but they manage and are a lovely family. The mum is one of eight herself so she is used to larger families.

neenztwinz · 23/05/2009 09:00

Four kids including twins and only two bedrooms .

I have twins and even they don;t share a room as they just disturb each other. Well done that mum!!

DiamondHead · 23/05/2009 09:28

I have had three under 5.

It is hard work. The youngest misses out on some baby stuff, ds misses out on some big boy stuff. There's always a bit of a compromise. They do play together nicely these days and dc3 is only 21 months.

Contrary to what people say above, I have no baby thirst left. I'm done and I'm happy. I don't want any more.

I do know someone who had 4 under 2. My life must be positive tranquility compared to that.

TheDuchessOfNorksBride · 23/05/2009 09:46

If you are in still in the baby/toddler trenches then I'd say, YES! throw another one in now.

I had 3 under 3 (NO twins [shock}) and it was OK. They get on great.

We had a 3 year break before having no. 4 (so 4 under 6) and it has been very hard fitting a baby in with school runs, pre-school runs, swimming lessons etc. None of my friends have babies anymore and I'm too pushed for time to make new friends/join baby groups. I also worry about how he'll gel with the others. Plus the house is no longer geared up for babies and I am finding it annoying to have the pushchair/high chair etc cluttering up the house again. It is tough going back to square 1 once you've moved on (although I suspect a big break of 10 years or so would be far more manageable).

whyme2 · 23/05/2009 10:39

Duchess - that is why we had no 4 close to the others. I definately didn't want to to wait and then go back to the baby stage. I think I would have chickened out from having no 4.
lol at Psycho's futility room. Is it padded?

juuule · 23/05/2009 11:49

I've had 2 lots ( 3 in 2 and half years and 3 in 3years) out of 9.

Loved having them all small together.
Oh the times we've had.
Hard work but worth it imo.

Suedonim · 23/05/2009 15:45

Yup, four dc and two bedrooms. They were rather caught on the hop by the twins! I'm sure they'll move eventually, esp now house prices are getting a bit less insane.

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread