Do I have to compromise on the age gap between our children/future children?

[Oooh1]

We have a son who is 2 years old. My ideal would be to start trying when he is 4 and a half. I have always wanted that. I am part-time, so he goes to nursery for one of those days, my mum and dad's for one of them and my MIL and FIL's for the other. It works well, I have him for the other days - on Sunday we both have him (DH and I). I really like our current set up, I can do swimming lessons with him (still parent and toddler classes) and he often enjoys some other classes that I can take him to also and do together. On the evenings of the day I have had him, DH has him while I go to my dance classes, on the days that I am at work, I pick him up from whoever has looked after him and have him while DH can meet friends/go to his guitar lesson. On Sunday we go out as a family - the zoo for example. It is a really lovely balance, we all get to spend lots of time with him, but also have a bit of our own time, we both still have a job and family get to see him on their own too. I couldn't be happier with the set-up. I really don't think having a second baby at this time will add to our family, I think it will just put stress on it. He says 2 years is the perfect age gap (statistically) and that's what he would like. He says he would be happy for me to be a SAHM, but I personally would really like to keep my part-time job, as I am still paying of the bloody student loan (not really the reason ) but because I just like it, I am not particularly careersy, definitely for maternal, but my job involves helping others and I find it very rewarding. Basically, I just want my first son to be at school when 2nd child is born. It's just how I want it. However, as DH wants this 2 year gap, do I have to compromise? I honestly don't know if this is something you compromise on. I said we could, if he went part-time - when I was full-time, we both had the same income, so it would be no different to me just becoming a SAHM, we would be fine on this income too, but he doesn't want to go part-time, so I feel like if he doesn't want to go part-time, we shouldn't go for it? I'm not saying having a toddler and baby isn't doable, but I personally don't want a toddler and baby together! As most of the classes DS does (with me) need me in the class until 4th birthday. I feel like I wouldn't be able to do these classes with second baby then either (which I definitely want to)... Basically, after all that waffle do I have to compromise? I kind of feel like I am offering a compromise by saying if he goes part-time and not me become a SAHM, like I say, our set up at the mo, it just wouldn't work. TIA! x

There's a longstanding "rule" on here that the partner who doesn't want another child is the one whose wishes should be respected, and I think that's right whether you don't want another full stop, or just not yet.

There's absolutely no guarantee that your children will get on better with a shorter age gap or that this would make life easier in the long run. Your current set up sounds ideal and I can completely understand why you don't want to rock the boat. As PP have said, you may not fall pregnant when you hope to, so what you intend to be a 4.5 year age gap may end up as 5 or 6, but if you're prepared to take that risk and you've no reason to think fertility is going to be a major issue if you wait, then I'd say stick to your guns.

We've decided to stop at just one child so perhaps I'm not the best person to be giving advice but in an ideal world I'd have liked 2 with a 4-5 year age gap. There are 4.5 years between me and my younger sibling and we got on well growing up, and I think we both benefitted from lots of 1-1 time with mum - me when I was still an only child, and my sibling when I was at school.

I think there's a massive difference between compromising on age gaps and compromising on whether to have another child.

There's a longstanding "rule" on here that the partner who doesn't want another child is the one whose wishes should be respected, and I think that's right whether you don't want another full stop, or just not yet.

I was going to say this, although I think it's not a "rule on here" but a general point. Refusing to have a baby is reasonable. Forcing someone to have a baby they don't want it not reasonable.

And you should never agree to start trying unless you are happy to be pregnant immediately.

I agree it's different pacific and didn't mean to imply otherwise, I just meant that IMO if either partner does not feel ready to have a child at this particular time, they should not be pressured into doing so.

It's different, but manly for the one who wants the child.

If you want a child and your partner does not, ever, you might choose to leave them.

If you want a child now and our partner wants one later, you'd be much less likely to leave.

For the partner who does not want the child, whether right now or ever, they must always be able to choose not to have a child at this time.

Yy Trills

of course, if I wanted a 10 year age gap between child 2 and 3, say, I would also be taking the risk that DH changed his mind about a third in the meantime, but as the difference in this case really isn't that great, it seems unlikely.

I'm due to have a baby next week and ds has just turned 5. Starting reception with me being off has been good I think because he's had me there everyday. I've also had a very difficult pregnancy and there is no way I could have looked after a toddler.

I've no idea about age gaps. Everyone seems to think whatever they've got is 'best'. 3 years seems to be the norm I see generally but I do wonder if that's due to free nursery hours kicking in for the older child. Family is what you make of it imho. However, I wouldn't be getting pregnant if I didn't want to and then be expected to make compromises I didn't want to for anyone.

I have 3 dc. There's 15m between my first 2 (by design). I wanted it over and done with. They are amazing. Could not be closer. Technically they have nothing in common other than as siblings as they are a ds and dd...however they are best mates and basically entertain each other which frees me up to deal with the 3rd, who whilst is still close in age (3 years younger) cannot really break into their little twosome.

I didn't want big as gaps as there are big 5 year gaps between my siblings and I hated it. Play with your sister eh there's only so long a 9yr old can play with a 4 year old. I hated holidays for exactly this reason. A little one always trailing along.

Personally I don't think that there's an ideal age. It's totally what fits with you. However, I wouldn't make choices based on pre scool classes etc. You'd be amazed what you can do with 2 of them. The dynamic of your family is always going to change whenever you add to it. A lot of what you do now won't fit with an extra person and likewise a lot of things will stay the same.

However as my own dm said: If you don't feel comfortable with it, then it isn't right.

I've had both size age gaps. 7year old Ds, 5year old DD, 8month old DD.

With first born DD I think she got the better deal with that age gap than what dd2 has with her age gap.

Any child you have after you're first born just had to fit in around existing routines really, child 2 will never have it the same as child 1. You could also end up with a child who hates clubs and classes, ds is a very shy boy and hated such organised things, dd1 is a social butterfly and so far dd2 is somewhere in between the two with regards to other babies.

It's also changed our holidays as the older two can obviously do things the baby can't and it will always be like with the larger age gap which means you have to really think ahead to make sure everyone will have a good time and it's not all just based or oldest or youngest child.

Not read all posts yet, but as much as I appreciate the goes and against on having an age gap, I have decided a bigger one is better for me - most of the comments are actually just about that! This wasn't the idea for the post, but thanks. It's all down to opinion.

I absolutely don't assume the grandparents will have them, where have I said that? Why do people always assume this? They asked to have him, both of them actually said they would take him for all 3 days that just wouldn't be fair, so came up with a good plan all around. If I really needed though, he can go to nursery, so I don't rely on them.

This was a thread about should you compromise and not about the age gap, as I honestly have decided which is best for me.

I conceived very quickly, I was so lucky (absolutely doesn't confirm I will this time) and started TTC and then missed my period!

Any thread about a compromise is going to involve people assessing the two positions that are looking to compromise though!

It's always going to be down to opinions though

I think I read the same study as LostSight, which says that for sibling harmony the best gap is less than 2 years or more than 4 years. Tell your DH!

I don't think a woman should get pregnant when she doesn't want to. The idea is abhorrent to me.

If you wait your DH is risking missing out on something he wanted. Oh dear well that's life. If you don't wait you are risking regretting a child. That has huge lifelong implications not just for you but also for the child.

Im sure your DH is thinking 'oh you'd love it when it's born'... but what if you didn't? what if you looked at that tiny baby and thought oh fuck. Nope. Not for me.

That's your family fucked then.

I am biased to small age gaps for all the practical reasons listed however my eldest has recently started school and I cannot imagine anything worse than having a baby while managing starting school / school runs / everything that goes with school .

You can never plan for the future especially around assuming you will get pregnant quickly or the health of granparents so I hope you & DH can agree. Ultimatley if he wont change his hours then he doesnt get a say and I would recommend it so when you start trying your eldest had been at school for at least 6 months to a year ( although I have no family help, dc1 has ASD and DH works min 12 hours a day so this makes it much harder ).

I wanted 4 year age gap for all the reasons you stated. ... ended up with 14 minutes - just think next time you may end up with twins too 😱

of course you do not have to compromise. You are the owner of the uterus so if you don't want it to have any tenants in it just yet, you have the absolute right to prevent yourself from getting pregnant until you are ready. Of course, your DH can express his point of view, but until he can grow a baby, he doesn't get to choose that you should be pregnant before you want to. I have a two year age gap, and actually it was really really hard work for the first 18 months. Your DH doesn't want to do the staying at home part time with a baby and a toddler, he is expecting you to do it. I think timing a second for when the first is going to school is actually a really good idea, and the only reason I did not do that myself is my age, and the difficulty I had conceiving the first. We expected it would take ages second time and we would have a 3-4 year age gap, but we got first time lucky. I don't regret it but it was really really tough on me having a baby and a two year old that wasn't even at preschool yet, and I did end up suffering with PND.

I'm not sure there's a perfect age gap. Too close isn't for me and I think less than 5 years between consecutive children is good. I have a friend with 3 children and each has a 5 year gap. She didn't want to be paying hefty childcare bills. This all depends on whether you have time on your side though.

If you want a 4 year gap he'll have to wait, as you're the one carrying the baby and will it impacts more on you and your body.

So your husband gets two nights out a week and you get one.

Amdyou have been willing to compromise your career by going part time but he is not willing to do the same. Indeed he is pressurising you to give up a job you love.

It seemed to me that one of you has been doing a lot of compromising already.

2 people working part time is likely to mean the net income in a household is higher as both utilise their full tax allowance.

Looking at friends children (and my own) I think it's down to personality as to whether the children get on, little to do with age gaps.

Regardless of the 'best' age gap, the issue for me is that you would have to sacrifice your job.

If your dh wants a child then it should be upto him to make the necessary sacrifices.
My advice would be to say that you don't want to stop working so unless he can got around that then no, you don't want to start trying for another baby.

I think it's also worth Yemen wrong that it's you who hAs to go through labour and pregnancy and that's not without problems too.

I absolutely agree with those saying don't sacrifice your job. It is so much harder to get a job that you want to do later when both kids are at school if you give up completely. Why won't he go part time? He obviously doesn't care about the age gap that much if he's not willing to invest his own career prospects into it.