What's the ideal gap between children?

nettienoo70

I have a 8, 17 and 20 year old.

the 8 yr old fights with the 17 year old and the 17 year old fights with the 20 year old so the ideal age gap IMO is 12 years

alwaystryyourbest

Hi theres no right age gap, I've got 6 children between 2 and 3 years between them all. loved have that size gap so i could spoil them with cuddles before they grew up..

but i would say if you are young go for a few year gap if you are old go for a small gap...

brians_daughter

Theres 11 years between number 1 & 2, 2 years 3 months between 2 & 3 and 16 months between 3 & 4.

All have advantages/disadvantages. Gap of 11 years was great as eldest was starting high school so didnt need much looking after lol.

Hardest adjustment was between 2&3, by the time 4 came along i had lost the plot and was used to it!

I do feel bad sometimes as the eldest does do more than he should re helping out with his younger siblings, but thats just the way it sometimes goes. In fact he's bathing 3&4 for me now as I cook dinner!

Goodness, talking about your children as numbers:T:T:T:T Must try it more often - i go through every name possible before i get to the right one

fluffnutter

penguin83 wrote: »

I am trying both ways so will let you know!

You do realise you don't get babies at all if you try it the 'other way'?

Mr_Toad

I kept seeing this conversation in the list and having read the title and from experience the correct answer to that question is.

About 20 miles.

valk_scot

Gawd I hate the Daily Mail. I read it online a couple of times a week when I need a good rant, also to remind myself that there are people out there who actually belive and support the bilge and rubbish it churns out so it's best to be vigilent...

Anyway, back on topic. I had two boys two years apart and thought that was ideal, by the time they were 2 and 4 they had pulled together as a team and could do more or less everything together. It was great. Then five years later we had a girl and though it was easier at first what with the bigger ones at school etc it wasn't easier at all when it came to holidays, activities, food and even being able to leave toys on the floor. It took untill she was about six or seven before we could pull her up into the team and then not very long after that they split up again into teenager v child. I really much prefered the two year gap tbh and if I had my time over I'd go for that. Shorter gap? Hmmmm not between first and second child, perhaps, but I was a veteran by the time I'd had two, I could have coped with three pre-schoolers I think.

kat360

There is 12 months and 3 weeks between my two lg's and I'm 31 weeks pregnant with my 3rd. I'll have a 3yo, a 2yo and a newborn:D I have to admit you have to grow pretty thick skin as everyone seems to have their own opinion on this, most say "you didn't hang about"( a midwife earlier in this pregnancy) I really don't think the age gap matters as long as you love and care for your children.
:j I wouldn't change it for anything:j

skintchick

Hezzawithkids wrote: »

There is no such thing as "ideal". Talking about it suggests that these things can be planned down to the last detail via some sort of spreadsheet formula. Anyone who has tried and failed for years to have their second child and suffered multiple miscarriages and all kinds of trauma both physical and mental throughout the process will tell you that any age gap is the "ideal" one.

Bringing a child into the world is a deeply personal experience, as well as being a blessing and a privilege. It shouldn't be subject to anyone else's notions of 'appropriate' timelines.

^^^ This.

I wanted a two year age gap. Well, five miscarriages later, my DD is three and a half and will be at least four by the time we have another.

The ideal age gap is the one you get.

MushyPeas wrote: »

I guess ultimately (apart from 3 year gap) there is no ideal, unless you're def. a 'get pregnant at drop of a hat' type lady sometimes nature decides when you have the next one!

Not even that. I get pregnant very easily. But thanks to a genetic blood clotting disorder I lose them pretty easily too. Nature ALWAYS decides when you have the next one.

There is no ideal age gap because everyone will say that the one they have is the best one, simply because it's all they know, and because children are lovely whatever age they are in relation to their siblings.

quinechinoise

idristhedragon wrote: »

Irish twins- now theres a saying. My boys have been referred to as that before, and having an Irish husband I find it s a bit of a *sucks breath in sharply* phrase. Swap it with "Chinese twins" or "Jamaican twins" and imagine the response you get.

Call them "Chinese twins" or "Scottish twins" if you want. It won't bother me. What I do object to is how some people refer to a Chinese carry out/take out - but I know they mean nothing by it so I just ignore it.

Anyway, back to the OP, there are 20 months between my two and several years between me and my sibling. A small age gap (for however many kids you're planning on) gets the nappies out the way sooner. A big age gap gives you a little more sleep in between the babies. From my point of view, the ideal age gap depends on whether you'd like all your insomnia in one go or if you'd like it stretched out over several years, with rest breaks in between. At the end of the day, I'm thankful for my kids under any circumstances, whether I got them sooner or later. A multitude of opinions is what keeps life interesting.

quinechinoise

skintchick wrote: »

children are lovely whatever age they are in relation to their siblings.

^Very sweet and true. They are all a blessing from the big man.