On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:12:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

Dee wrote:

I have also heard two to three is harder I supose you are trying to
juggle three needs not just two.

I didn't find 2-3 to be harder (though I had a 6 year gap
between 2 and 3). It was much easier having older children and
a baby. My third hasn't had a leisurly existence as a baby and
toddler, since we have a busy schedule, but she seems happy as a
clam.

I have also got a small gap between my two, just twenty months, and it
has been a very hard slog (and still is!!) so another reason poor hubby
is saying no. I would really like another one straight away as I think
the larger the gap the more isolated this third, if there is one, will
be.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Sure, my third won't have
a close-in-age sibling, but she adores her older brothers and they
adore her. It is a slight challenge for family activities, as
she and her brothers are at different stages in terms of what
they're interested in and able to do, but that really hasn't been
much of a problem for us.

To be honest, having 6 years between #1 and #4 seems nearly as
difficult as 6 years between #2 and #3. Although there are still the
two in between it is tricky balancing how many out of school
activities that Shrimp wants to do with what is good for the rest of
the family. As soon as that first one hits school age and wants to
start participating in activities outside the house I think you are
going to find there are some problems. Any baby that can't transfer
from car to house or vice versa may end up being a very tired baby.

Cheryl