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

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Planning 2nd baby when 1st is only 13 months, good idea or not?

38 replies

Marie12 · 15/06/2006 11:55

Just of the mindset that as we want to have 2 children, that it is better to get it out the way while still young (me 27 and DH 28). What are people's experiences of having 2 fairly close together?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

zubb · 15/06/2006 11:57

You'll get different answers from everyone on this - you just have to go with what you thinks best.
FWIW I have 22 months between ds1 and ds2, and between ds2 and ds3 and I think it's a great gap, and they all seem really close. So I got pregnant when they were 13 months old both times.

sleepycat · 15/06/2006 11:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bundle · 15/06/2006 11:59

the "optimum" age gap is a little wider, iirc, in terms of baby's health (weight, going to term etc)
i wanted a 3 yr gap (there's 2 yr 10 mths) as I wanted my older daughter to have her "babydom" for a while and be able to communicate by the time i'd had my 2nd one. I also had a caesarean section so it was wise to leave a reasonable gap.

bundle · 15/06/2006 12:00

oh yes the 2 in nappies thing is important too

Moomin · 15/06/2006 12:01

no advice on the 2 close together but there will be lots of other people who can help with that respect. all i will say is that planning two close together and having them close together are not the same thing! We wanted a gap of at least 2-3 years but we started trying for number 2 when dd1 was 15m old as we were in our 30s. We knew it would be hard if we got pg straight away, with 2 very little ones but felt that peole survive and just get on with it. Glad we did try early as it took 2 years to conceive number 2!! so there are 4 years between our 2 and that suits us very well as it happens but it wasn't planned like that!

not saying you'll have trouble yourselves but just reminding you with families that there is no 'perfect time' - you get what yu're given when you're given it and you muddle through as best you can! good luck with it all.

morningpaper · 15/06/2006 12:01

it is never out of the way :)

From extensively talking to mummies, 3 years is the easiest

shimmy21 · 15/06/2006 12:01

Actually I don't think it's that close compared to some people's babes on MN. My 2 are 2 years apart and are very very close (closer to each other than to me and dh in a lot of ways). I guess that's also because they are both boys. But FWIW I think it's a great gap. Big enough for them not to miss out on being individuals, small enough for them to enjoy the same games and have each other as friends.

FillyjonktheFluffy · 15/06/2006 12:02

would you have 22 months or 13 months gap? We have 22 months between ds and dd. Its pretty good now, when dd was younger it was absoluely horrible, sorry, she cried constantly and ds got little attention .

its not that much extra work as such, its that you can't do much cos you're carrying round a baby and you're shagged. Also, you miss a lot of, like me, you get very tired when pg.

FillyjonktheFluffy · 15/06/2006 12:02

we do want no 3 but are planning a bigger gap, like maybe 3/4 years.

morningpaper · 15/06/2006 12:03

Yes - being pregnant second time around was MUCH harder and meant that the oldest one didn't get the attention that I wanted to give her

HappyMumof2 · 15/06/2006 12:15

why do you want such a small age gap? You are still young. Personally, I would not and did not chose a small age gap.

My two are 4 yrs 4 mths apart and it has been easy. Ds was at school full time when dd was born and so I had loads of time with her and he had his own time away from the baby.

She has been easy from birth, because we have always had a routine, school runs etc.

Each to their own, and if you want a small age gap then go for it but I don't think you should view having your children as something to 'get out the way' Why not spread it out a little and enjoy them???

Moomin · 15/06/2006 12:18

the 4 year gap has been very good overall. maybe dd1's had her nose put out of joint a little but at least we were able to explain more to her about her sister's arrival and dd1 started pre-school at the same time so her world was opening up for her at that time and all of the change came at once, which she responded really well to overall.

as far as i'm concerned, being mum to 2 is much harder than 1 despite dd1's relative independence. i really hate to think how i'd have coped with 2 under 2/3 - but that's just me.

Original poster

Marie12 · 15/06/2006 12:20

FillyjonktheFluffy - would be about 22 months if I got pregnant now, but as Moomin says, that night not happen. It could take ages to conceive, I could miscarry etc. I know a few people who have had 1st no problem, then miscarried 2nd. Obviously there is no pattern, but I am prepared for the fact that just because 1st pregnancy was straightforward, doesn't necessarily mean 2nd one would be.

OP posts:

Moomin · 15/06/2006 12:21

and further to Happymum's post, i'd agree that it's been nice having one baby at a time so to speak. dd1 was a little girl when dd2 arrived. it's lovely having them at such different stages. we have friends whose two are 13m apart!!! but they're very different to us and have coped well with it. i think i'd be bald by now. each to her own anyway.

HappyMumof2 · 15/06/2006 12:26

Marie12, I get what you are saying but if you look at it logically, you have had one straightforward pregnancy, you can't start trying to concieve just because it may take a while or you may miscarry. You are more likely to fall pregnant quickly and get your small age gap!

Original poster

Marie12 · 15/06/2006 12:28

I don't mean 'get out of the way' in a bad way, I just mean that personally I would like to be a young mum. At least by having them close together, the sleepless nights, nappies etc, won't be a too distant memory and hopefully will be easier to deal with than if I wait say 3 years or more. Also thinking that when they are older they can play together and be company for each other.

Theres lots to consider. I knew everyone would have different opinions!

OP posts:

FillyjonktheFluffy · 15/06/2006 12:29

do you know what though? After the first 8 months, its actually pretty great. THey play together and ds has benefited from having a little sister, imo. He gets very worried about her if, by some miracle, she falls asleep in her cot!

morningpaper · 15/06/2006 12:30

Do the sleepless nights STOP at some point?

I shall look forward to that

FillyjonktheFluffy · 15/06/2006 12:30

oh, i'm 28, btw, ds was born when i was 25 and dd when 27.

morningpaper · 15/06/2006 12:30

Don't worry any mums under 40 are "Young mums" these days

SomethingAboutMary · 15/06/2006 12:32

When we tried for our 2nd ds was 2 but unfortunalty we had a miscarriage, then we tried again a few months later & i fell pregnant dd was born when ds was 3.4 & i think its a brilliant age gap & i believe in our circumstances the best, ds is quite a challenging child (or should i say has been) he is now 90% better & is soooo much easier, that it made the perfect timing for when dd was born, yes there are still days when its hard & yes i still struggle sometimes because i have 2 but i think for me persoanlly i would have struggled more if ds had been younger.

So i suppose it also depends on your 1st child 7 what they are like too.

Goodluck with whatever you decide

morningpaper · 15/06/2006 12:32

I once saw a friend of mine with two close together coming out of a public toilet with her 2 year old with just a tee-shirt on, covered in poo from his waist to his ankles, holding her newborn under one arm and a carrier bag full of shitty clothes and nappies in the other and I thought NEVER EVER EVER AM I GOING TO DO THAT.

The STRESS of moments like that having to manage two just seems unbearable to me.

Original poster

Marie12 · 15/06/2006 12:33

Why is it that some people on here are always so ready to take everything you say so literally? I know that sleepless nights don't just STOP, but I for one, am not up every 2 hours at night to feed my 13 month old!

OP posts:

Moomin · 15/06/2006 12:41

i think mp was just being ironic. we both had babies at the same time last year and mine is 'sleeping through' (as in 7-7) whereas i know mp's isn't at the moment - or wasn't last time i looked. every baby is completely different, and so is every parent's tolerance level!

mp - LOL at poo story

morningpaper · 15/06/2006 12:48

Jeez my 3.5 year old still doesn't usually "sleep through"!

I really do think that having a small age gap is terribly hard work, mentally and physically

But I am biased because I have watched my two friends with small age gaps hvae breakdowns which has been AWFUL for them and their families :( So in my head these two facts are related

Flip

1 2