Family Dynamic Change When Adding 4th Child?

[wendyroo]

Before my husband and I got married we agreed to try for three children and then consider perhaps adding a fourth.  

 

This has all gone swimmingly, and now here we are pondering that fourth child and DH and I aren't on exactly the same page.  We are in the same book; we both agree there would be pros and cons to adding another child and we even, largely, agree what the pros and cons would be, but our opinions start to diverge a bit when it comes to weighing those pros and cons.  We do both agree that if it is going to happen it has to be soonish since DH is getting older and we don't want more than a 2.5-3 year gap between the youngest two kids. 

 

One of DH's biggest stumbling blocks is that he thinks a fourth child would change the dynamic of the family.  He hasn't been able to articulate exactly what that means to him, but he has said that three kids seems like a "normal" family and four kids seems like a big family.

 

What was your experience?  Did you find your family dynamics changed a lot when you added a fourth child?

 

Thanks,

Wendy

[sassenach]

I feel like family dynamics change with EVERY child.  The old family is gone, and the new family begins.  Each tiny human brings their own personality, needs, and quirks into the mix.

 

 

[MiMi 4under3]

And before you know it, the "new" dynamic feels like the "regular" dynamic. You forget what life was like before...

 

Sorry, can't offer much advice because my 3rd and 4th came together.  :laugh:

[chocolatechip]

Growing up, I had three siblings. Many of my friends had families with 6, 7, 8 (one even with 11!) kids. 

 

I felt like we were the small family! 

[maize]

For me as a parent the biggest changes seemed to be with the third and fifth children. #4 wasn't such a big deal. #3 meant mom and dad were outnumbered, three to four wasn't a big jump, but five--I still haven't figured out how to keep up with five and now we're expecting #6...

[Amy in NH]

A child psychologist I worked for put it best:  It is when you have the third child that the dynamic changes because you, as parents, are now outnumbered. 

 

IME, having the third and fourth have not been as big a change as having the first and then the second.  Adding the fourth into the family was easy-peasy.

[rdj2027]

In our situation having the fourth really didn't change much other than that she is the only girl and we were inundated with clothes :lol: .  She has always been an easy child.  Our first one is and would always have been the greatest challenge because of his personality regardless of where he is in the line.

[gardenmom5]

they're all different.  I had more changes in dynamics based upon personality than number of children.

 

i have five - but number five came when number four was 12.

[Jennifer132]

I see it the way your dh does. Three seems "normal", while four is pushing the limit into "large family" territory. We get the large family comments frequently and the stares and comments and we "only" have four. I think it does change the family dynamic, but that's not necessarily a con. We like having a large family--now we are adding a fifth!!

[Heatherwith4]

Number three was a game changer for us. I can't imagine four being that much different.

[Cera]

I don't know about the family dynamic changing but I have noticed a few things about having four kids (I went from two to four when I remarried).

 

Four kids just seems like a pack.  When one is gone (to a friends house, activity, etc) it is significantly calmer.  That fourth kid just seems to put them over the edge from loud to crazy many times.  I have also noticed that the world isn't really made for families with more than 4 kids.  Three kids fit in the backseat of a normal vehicle, can stay with their parents in one hotel room (2 beds and a rollaway), all fit at a normal restaurant table (3 kids can sit on one side of a booth with adults on the other), can be supervised by one adult at our local zipline park (3 per adult max), etc.  It isn't that a fourth kid is any more expensive than a second or third but they are because they bump you up to requiring something extra so many times.  

 

On the flip side, it is nice to have two "sets" of kids.  There seems to be less fighting with 3 than with 4.  With 4 they just swap playmates whenever tensions start to get high but when we only have 3 home there is a much larger chance someone will be left out or there will be bickering over who is playing with who.

[Laurie4b]

We have 4. The fourth was an easy addition. I thought the 2nd was hardest because I had to divide my attention for the first time. Once you've divided by 2,  then by 3, dividing by 4 is  no big deal. Of course, you have to adjust routines somewhat (like how to go to the grocery store with the ages you have) but you have to do that with any baby. And with a 4th, usually there are a couple of kids who are old enough to help out at least a little.  ("Go get Mommy a diaper," etc.)

[texasmama]

For me, it was kid number three that tipped the scales. I never recovered. This is not all bad. :)

[staceyobu]

Two to three seemed harder to me than 3 to 4.

[freesia]

Adding the fourth was not hard. In someways the dynamics are good bc there is no "odd man out". Four only feels big at soccer games. In homeschool circles, we feel average.

[fairfarmhand]

That argument is kind of silly to me.

 

Every child changes the dynamic of the family.

 

Perhaps he's just trying to wrap his head around four children. Perhaps four is a much larger number of kids than most of the people you know. Personally, we know people withe even more kids than us, so we feel kind of average.

[Lolly]

4th was easy. I'm agreeing that it is the third that really changes things. Then, I went from one to 3 instantly, so who am I to know. #4 really just kind of slid into place for us.

[NoseInABook]

For us, baby four was very easy to add in. He meshed with us beautifully and it wasn't rocky in the least. Baby five wasn't hard either but that came with the extra that fostering vs biological babies does. Honestly, the third was the roughest for us and I'm not sure if it was because I suddenly didn't have enough hands to manage all of the kids at once or if it was because my other two were newly 15 months and 25 months when she was born.

[mamakelly]

I'll be the loner dissenter, ha ha! The 4th baby put me over the edge. He was fussy, never happy, cried in the car etc.... He's a great kid, but still, having 4 kids is much harder than only 3. And somehow the expenses jumped exponentially. 3 kids was perfect, 4 is just nuts, LOL.

[rebbyribs]

Our 4th child was our easiest baby and has grown into our "funny guy" - he loves making people laugh.  He was generally very happy and mellow as a baby - I think because there was always so much going on to watch.  My oldest asked to me to bring him in for "live sharing" at her school when he was about a year old, and he was totally unfazed by 15 1st graders fawning over him and trying to pat him.  :-)

 

I also loved watching my oldest be a big sister to baby #4 - she had a lot of jealousy when the twins were born and still gets competitive with them, but she was so sweet to #4 as a baby and they get along very well now.  

 

So, yes, our 4th child was a big, positive change to our family dynamic.

[Diann]

I found adding the 4th was much easier than the 3rd. Dividing my time between 3 was harder for me to learn, but once I did, adding a 4th was easy.

 

Diann

[wendyroo]

... but still, having 4 kids is much harder than only 3. And somehow the expenses jumped exponentially. 3 kids was perfect, 4 is just nuts, LOL.

 

If I had to guess, this is what DH has in mind.  He finds keeping track of three kids at the park or library much harder than two kids and he worries that 4 kids would be significantly more difficult than three kids.  I think in his mind, four kids would be the breaking point where we would start doing less things because they would be too hard to manage with our "big" family.  I tend to think we would adapt quickly - we certainly did when we added Spencer.

 

I think part of it is that DH has a hard time envisioning how the family would look 18 months down the road when the new baby came.  He talked about how difficult it would be to bathe four kids together (such a big concern :glare: ), but by the time the baby was ready to sit in the big bath tub Peter would be 7 and would be ready to bathe or shower on his own anyway.

 

I kind of feel like the difficulty level probably evens out a bit after 3 kids.  We have mastered the art of doing things like grocery shopping and camping with a baby, toddler and preschooler, and it seems like adding a bigger kid wouldn't be much more difficult.  But that is just conjecture on my part, and I fully acknowledge that each additional child does add to the workload.

 

Wendy

[Year Round Mom]

DC 1, 2, and 3 were spaced close together (less than 2 years between 1 and 2, and between 2 and 3), and #3 was unexpected, so that made the dynamic feel really different when she arrived! #3 was 4 yo when #4 was born and it was a fairly smooth transition. I agree with whomever brought up personality, because #4 has a personality that is so vibrant and cute and peppery that she doesn't get lost in the fray and yet she's not a burden because she's always making us laugh! #2 had such a high-strung personality that when she was a toddler and #3 came along, I was beside myself!

 

On the other hand, four kids (#4 is a toddler now) all herded into grocery stores, onto planes or other tight places does feel crowded! So there's that :)

 

We were at a children's museum over the weekend and I was pushing my toddler in the stroller (dc were with DH in another area) and came up to a family with 5 or 6 kids. I just smiled as I made my way through the toddlers, pre-schoolers, and elementary students. The two parents were off to the side, holding the baby, but the kids were just sprawled through the doorway. That's my family!!! They look like there's more than there are!

[wendyroo]

My toughest number, bar none, was zero to one. It was a huge shift, I was young, and my recovery postpartum was horrible. Everything else has seemed comparably lovely compared to a horrible labor, c-section recovery, moving cities at five weeks postpartum, and untreated postpartum depression. Ugh!

 

For me, one to two was the hardest.

 

Having my first was pretty easy.  Figuring out how to balance the needs of two children was hard.  Adding the third was a piece of cake.

 

Wendy

[Jennifer132]

If I had to guess, this is what DH has in mind. He finds keeping track of three kids at the park or library much harder than two kids and he worries that 4 kids would be significantly more difficult than three kids. I think in his mind, four kids would be the breaking point where we would start doing less things because they would be too hard to manage with our "big" family. I tend to think we would adapt quickly - we certainly did when we added Spencer.

 

 

 

Wendy

I actually agree. When we had three kids, (two big kids and a baby) we went everywhere. When we added a fourth, honestly, it was too hard for me to go places alone. Four kids and a mom at a doctors appt is kind of ridiculous with such small, stuffy rooms. Fours kids and trying to make a quick stop at Walmart, also ridiculously more difficult than with three kids. watching four kids at the park etc all more difficult than 3. That being said, it could be the ages and issues of my particular family that made it so difficult. We still chose to have more, so it's not like the difficulties can't be overcome, but it IS an adjustment.

[Incognito]

I seem to recall you have talked about your oldest being a handful.  Perhaps that is part of your DH's concern.  Often the oldest relieves some of the burden of having more kids (plays with the baby, gets this or that for you, etc.), but if your oldest is your hardest, that wouldn't be true.

 

I only have 3, but we have talked about 4, and the personalities of the kids we have and what they are capable of play into our decision making process.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Wendy, in prior threads you have said that your oldest bullies your younger kids and that supervision is an issue with him. I wonder when that started and if it is possible that there is some sibling rivalry at play. Personally, I would be hesitant to add another child if there was a chance that this was the case and if I felt that my older kids would pose a danger to a new baby. If supervising three is hard, then supervising four will only be harder. 

[LMD]

it's really so variable isn't it?! I would agree with those that say it's more to do with personalities, spacing, other circumstances etc.

Our 4th has been easy peasy to add, comparatively, because our 3rd has the personality of a tornado! I go more places now with this one than I did while #3 was such a handful (from about 10months when he started running, to 3.5yo when we regained some semblance of control!)

#4 just has a much more happy and calm disposition which makes for a nice dynamic in the house. And dh took on the grocery shopping when he was born!

[wendyroo]

I seem to recall you have talked about your oldest being a handful. Perhaps that is part of your DH's concern. Often the oldest relieves some of the burden of having more kids (plays with the baby, gets this or that for you, etc.), but if your oldest is your hardest, that wouldn't be true.

 

I only have 3, but we have talked about 4, and the personalities of the kids we have and what they are capable of play into our decision making process.

Peter definitely weighs heavily on our mind when we start considering adding another child. That is why we have tabled the discussion for a few months until after Peter's psych evaluations when we will, hopefully, have a better understanding of what issues are at play. A part of me, perhaps an overly optimistic part, wonders if getting Peter started on some anxiety meds might make a world of difference in all our lives.

 

Neither DH nor I, however, think that Peter's issues are necessarily a reason to not have a fourth child. We agree that in some ways having another child would be good for all the kids. There are the obvious detrimental effects - giving Peter more bullying targets, having to find ways to safely supervise four instead of three, but we think the biggest benefit would be "diluting" Peter's influence in the house a bit more.

 

Peter is so grumpy and unhappy and seemingly mean so much of the time, that his negative interactions with other people can start to cast a pall over the house. Once Elliot (and soon Spencer) was old enough to talk and laugh and play the whole atmospere of the house changed. Peter is still often screaming and throwing tantrums, but now there are two or three of us banded together going about our day in an upbeat manner. It is good for Peter because when his tantrum has finally blown over there is a cheery group ready to welcome him back. It is good for the other boys because when Peter is being especially frustrating it gives them a built in support system.

 

Wendy

[Forget-Me-Not]

I agree that the dynamic changes and you find a new normal with each kid. But I will say that 4 did feel bigger -- a lot bigger --than three. I'm not sure why. In some ways it was an easier transition. My fourth is a very laid-back, easygoing guy and just assimilated right in, but it just felt like a lot more *people*.

 

As far as keeping track of kids in public, I see from your siggy that your three are still pretty little. That gets easier. At some point they just naturally stay with you, or you can safely send them a longer distance from you. There is ten years between my oldest and youngest and that's been a nice spread for me. My oldest can push a stroller or grocery cart, strap a baby in the car, run back for a missed grocery item, etc.

[Jennifer132]

Wendy, in prior threads you have said that your oldest bullies your younger kids and that supervision is an issue with him. I wonder when that started and if it is possible that there is some sibling rivalry at play. Personally, I would be hesitant to add another child if there was a chance that this was the case and if I felt that my older kids would pose a danger to a new baby. If supervising three is hard, then supervising four will only be harder.

My oldest was diagnosed with autism when he was 5, and at the time we only had two children. He was very aggressive at that time, and though I did want another child, I would not have added one during such a difficult time with my son. We do have a large gap, and that is part of the reason why that is so. If you are having alot of struggles with your son right now, I would not recommend having another in the near future. When we finally added our third into the mix, my son's anger was under control, and he has become wonderful with his baby sisters.

 

The poster who said the oldest usually helps out, but if your oldest has issues that dynamic wouldn't be there describes our family well. Since my oldest has autism, though he isn't a danger, he isn't capable of taking on those helping roles either (yet). My second child, who is 8 now, is a much, much bigger helper.

[LJPPKGFGSC]

A wise grandmother explained it this way to me right after I had my third child...

 

Every child is not just one more baby, but one more relationship with each person who is already in the family.  So, while the first child might be emotionally easy because you just manage your own relationship with them, and watch dad develop a relationship with the baby too.  Then, when the second child the everyone adjusts, so you have three new "relationships".  And with the third that would be four new "relationships" and so on.  Practically speaking, is primarily up to the mom to mange the day-to-day (and minute-to-minute) relationships among all your children.

 

So, there is the wisdom of a grandmother - for whatever it is worth for your family!

[Storygirl]

I don't know about the family dynamic changing but I have noticed a few things about having four kids (I went from two to four when I remarried).

 

Four kids just seems like a pack.  When one is gone (to a friends house, activity, etc) it is significantly calmer.  That fourth kid just seems to put them over the edge from loud to crazy many times.  I have also noticed that the world isn't really made for families with more than 4 kids.  Three kids fit in the backseat of a normal vehicle, can stay with their parents in one hotel room (2 beds and a rollaway), all fit at a normal restaurant table (3 kids can sit on one side of a booth with adults on the other), can be supervised by one adult at our local zipline park (3 per adult max), etc.  It isn't that a fourth kid is any more expensive than a second or third but they are because they bump you up to requiring something extra so many times.  

 

On the flip side, it is nice to have two "sets" of kids.  There seems to be less fighting with 3 than with 4.  With 4 they just swap playmates whenever tensions start to get high but when we only have 3 home there is a much larger chance someone will be left out or there will be bickering over who is playing with who.

 

:iagree: with every word of this post. I went directly from two kids to four, so I can't comment otherwise on going from three to four. But we definitely cannot ride in a normal car or stay in a regular sized hotel room. There are some upcharges that come with a family larger than five people that you might not think about ahead of time.

[J-rap]

For me, the changes to two and three were the hardest.  And even then, it's not that they were really "hard," -- they just felt like the biggest change.  Going to four actually seemed pretty simple, and was really kind of nice because then we had an even number so everyone had a partner.  :)  (Although having five changed that!  ha)  Also, #4 was my easiest one of all -- both the pregnancy, the delivery, and the infancy.  She's a pretty terrific young adult too! 

[Storygirl]

If I had to guess, this is what DH has in mind.  He finds keeping track of three kids at the park or library much harder than two kids and he worries that 4 kids would be significantly more difficult than three kids.  I think in his mind, four kids would be the breaking point where we would start doing less things because they would be too hard to manage with our "big" family.  I tend to think we would adapt quickly - we certainly did when we added Spencer.

 

I think part of it is that DH has a hard time envisioning how the family would look 18 months down the road when the new baby came.  He talked about how difficult it would be to bathe four kids together (such a big concern :glare: ), but by the time the baby was ready to sit in the big bath tub Peter would be 7 and would be ready to bathe or shower on his own anyway.

 

I kind of feel like the difficulty level probably evens out a bit after 3 kids.  We have mastered the art of doing things like grocery shopping and camping with a baby, toddler and preschooler, and it seems like adding a bigger kid wouldn't be much more difficult.  But that is just conjecture on my part, and I fully acknowledge that each additional child does add to the workload.

 

Wendy

 

I still find it hard to herd my four kids when we are out, even at their older age. It depends upon your children. When I have only three with me instead of four (and it doesn't matter that much which one is missing), it is much easier, whether we are out and about or at home.

 

My ten year old still needs help bathing (he has ADHD and major executive function issues). The others could probably do it alone, but I still help them all, because it is our routine -- we pop one into the tub after another. No dawdling allowed. Even DD12 likes my help (she has challenging hair) though she does shower by herself sometimes as well. Are you sure that Peter will be as independent as you hope in just two years?  I still have to monitor my son all the time to keep him out of trouble, and he is way behind his peers on self care.  If any of these things are challenging for you today, they very well may still be challenging two years down the road. And having another child will make it all harder.

 

I have several friends who wanted to add to their families, and their husbands did not agree. It's not uncommon. I would say that you shouldn't add another unless you are both in full agreement that it is the best decision. Your husband may never get there, but perhaps he will.

[Storygirl]

Peter definitely weighs heavily on our mind when we start considering adding another child. That is why we have tabled the discussion for a few months until after Peter's psych evaluations when we will, hopefully, have a better understanding of what issues are at play. A part of me, perhaps an overly optimistic part, wonders if getting Peter started on some anxiety meds might make a world of difference in all our lives.

 

Neither DH nor I, however, think that Peter's issues are necessarily a reason to not have a fourth child. We agree that in some ways having another child would be good for all the kids. There are the obvious detrimental effects - giving Peter more bullying targets, having to find ways to safely supervise four instead of three, but we think the biggest benefit would be "diluting" Peter's influence in the house a bit more.

 

Peter is so grumpy and unhappy and seemingly mean so much of the time, that his negative interactions with other people can start to cast a pall over the house. Once Elliot (and soon Spencer) was old enough to talk and laugh and play the whole atmospere of the house changed. Peter is still often screaming and throwing tantrums, but now there are two or three of us banded together going about our day in an upbeat manner. It is good for Peter because when his tantrum has finally blown over there is a cheery group ready to welcome him back. It is good for the other boys because when Peter is being especially frustrating it gives them a built in support system.

 

Wendy

 

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug:

 

I grew up with a bullying older brother. Two years older than me. I still have emotional baggage about this, and I'm in my forties. I believe in your circumstances I would think very hard before bringing another child into your home. I feel for you.

[mamakelly]

For me, one to two was the hardest.

 

Having my first was pretty easy.  Figuring out how to balance the needs of two children was hard.  Adding the third was a piece of cake.

 

Wendy

 

That's exactly how it was for me. And the 4th threw me over into crazy land.

[momto10blessings]

Adding a fourth was easy for us. He just fit right in and was (is) an amazing little guy. I can't imagine life without #4

[FO4UR]

Peter definitely weighs heavily on our mind when we start considering adding another child. That is why we have tabled the discussion for a few months until after Peter's psych evaluations when we will, hopefully, have a better understanding of what issues are at play. A part of me, perhaps an overly optimistic part, wonders if getting Peter started on some anxiety meds might make a world of difference in all our lives.

 

Neither DH nor I, however, think that Peter's issues are necessarily a reason to not have a fourth child. We agree that in some ways having another child would be good for all the kids. There are the obvious detrimental effects - giving Peter more bullying targets, having to find ways to safely supervise four instead of three, but we think the biggest benefit would be "diluting" Peter's influence in the house a bit more.

 

Peter is so grumpy and unhappy and seemingly mean so much of the time, that his negative interactions with other people can start to cast a pall over the house. Once Elliot (and soon Spencer) was old enough to talk and laugh and play the whole atmospere of the house changed. Peter is still often screaming and throwing tantrums, but now there are two or three of us banded together going about our day in an upbeat manner. It is good for Peter because when his tantrum has finally blown over there is a cheery group ready to welcome him back. It is good for the other boys because when Peter is being especially frustrating it gives them a built in support system.

 

Wendy

 

 

In that situation, I would table any discussion over a 4th child until Peter is doing much MUCH better.

 

With mommy down recovering from birth, and then on the couch nursing the babe, Peter will likely get worse not better.   Your other dc are not old enough to handle him w/o you *THERE.*  A new baby will not dilute problems in the home.  A new baby will pull your energy from managing those problems, which will then perhaps explode.  Elliot and Spencer are still babies...3yo is a baby in a big kid's body. 

 

 

There is no law against large spacing between children, so don't let that push you into having another before your family is ready.  It isn't about managing 4 littles at the library.  That's the easy part. 

 

 

 

Adding my 4th was a huge change b/c we thought we were done.  It has been a lot of fun b/c my older 3 are mature enough to really help care for her rather than rival for attention.  They rival each other for her attention, but....   She's also at risk for being truly spoiled b/c there is always someone willing to help her, play with her, sneak her some ice cream, etc..

[fairfarmhand]

My 4th added a new layer of stress and complexity to our lives.

 

However, I have an extremely demanding oldest who was 10 when her baby brother arrived. While she could be a big help, she was still very intense and requires what I call "Extreme Parenting." Puberty made her even crazier than normal. Dealing with teen tantrums and toddler tantrums on the same day is utterly draining. So it wasn't so much the baby, as much as it was I was dealing with a baby while dealing with my oldest's craziness. (she takes more parenting energy than all three of her siblings put together)

 

You are probably right in that your dh is considering how things look now. I promise that they look better when the new baby is about 2. Those first 2 years are pretty crazy though. And my dh and I started having to do more divide and conquer stuff when we had 4. He'd take 2 kids, I'd take 2 kids, or he'd keep the baby and I'd go do stuff with the bigger kids. We didn't do much "out of the house" stuff as a family until the 4th was  bigger because keeping track of all those people was tiring. It wasn't fun to go out to eat, visit an amusement park, etc. with just one parent because I was so scattered.

 

I think it is wise for you to consider your oldest's special needs before adding another child.

 

And there is no law that says you have to have another child in the next year or two. Having gaps of 3 or 4 years between the two youngest is no big deal. My 2 that are 3 years apart play just as well as my 2 that are 2 yrs apart.

[wendyroo]

I think it is wise for you to consider your oldest's special needs before adding another child.

 

I have given it a ton of consideration, but it always leads me to more questions than answers.

 

Peter has a mental disability, and that clearly impacts his younger siblings.  But does it impact them enough that they would be better off not having been born?  

 

Peter's relationships with his siblings are not completely negative, like all relationships they are a mix of positives and negatives.  He is actually a very kind big brother much of the time, until his disability gets the better of him.  Is it not fair to have a baby knowing his or her relationship with Peter would be far from ideal?  Then again, the new baby's relationship with Elliot or Spencer or me or anyone else wouldn't be all sunshine and roses either - all relationships are a mix of pluses and minuses.  When do the minuses overshadow the pluses?  And does it matter that other than having to deal with Peter's disability, the rest of the new baby's life would be nigh on Utopian, filled with love and stability and attention and opportunities and financial security.

 

Obviously if DH or I ultimately decide that we can't handle another child then we shouldn't bring one into this world.  However, if we reach agreement that we think we can handle a fourth, that we both want a fourth, that we think a fourth would be a blessing to our family, then the issue becomes a lot more complicated.  Is it right, or just or fair to bring a child into this world to face a known hardship?  People have children even when there are bombs falling all around them.  They have children even when they don't reliably have food to feed them.  Is that selfish or irresponsible?  I don't know.

 

Wendy

[umsami]

Our 4th has been a major blessing, and not a major life change other than mentioned above about needing an extra hotel room, etc.

 

What was surprising is how much having him helped with DS1, who is seven years older.  They really got close last year when I was homeschooling DS1…and it helped with DS1's behavior.

 

Everybody loves #4…..and he's really a sweet funny guy.  Very blessed to have him.  

 

I think it's totally fine to wait, though.  While spaced close together can be nice, it can also be helpful to have a larger gap, so that other kids don't see the little one as a threat.

[fairfarmhand]

I have given it a ton of consideration, but it always leads me to more questions than answers.

 

Peter has a mental disability, and that clearly impacts his younger siblings.  But does it impact them enough that they would be better off not having been born?  

 

Peter's relationships with his siblings are not completely negative, like all relationships they are a mix of positives and negatives.  He is actually a very kind big brother much of the time, until his disability gets the better of him.  Is it not fair to have a baby knowing his or her relationship with Peter would be far from ideal?  Then again, the new baby's relationship with Elliot or Spencer or me or anyone else wouldn't be all sunshine and roses either - all relationships are a mix of pluses and minuses.  When do the minuses overshadow the pluses?  And does it matter that other than having to deal with Peter's disability, the rest of the new baby's life would be nigh on Utopian, filled with love and stability and attention and opportunities and financial security.

 

Obviously if DH or I ultimately decide that we can't handle another child then we shouldn't bring one into this world.  However, if we reach agreement that we think we can handle a fourth, that we both want a fourth, that we think a fourth would be a blessing to our family, then the issue becomes a lot more complicated.  Is it right, or just or fair to bring a child into this world to face a known hardship?  People have children even when there are bombs falling all around them.  They have children even when they don't reliably have food to feed them.  Is that selfish or irresponsible?  I don't know.

 

Wendy

I totally understand the ambivalence. Our 4th was an oops. So it was decided for me. :) Takes the pressure off when it's accidental.

 

For me, the decision was whether to have a 5th.

 

We decided on a no. I was totally stretched completely beyond what I could handle. It was more about me than it was the kids at that point. I probably could have done it. I would have been a mess for a long time though. I felt that I needed to be a good mom to the kids that I HAD currently.

 

Theres a difference between muddling through because you have to and choosing to sign up for it.

 

So that's my thought process. Yours may be different. I totally understand all the factors that come into play when you are trying to make such a complex decision.

 

RE: your statement about better off never having been born

 

I carry genetics for a disability that could have impacted my kids, esp. my son. My brother worries about passing this same disability on to his kids/grandkids. It has impacted his life greatly, since it is expressed in boys. This factor comes into play when they discuss having more kids. Right now he has girls, so they may pass it to their kids. I've told my husband that I won't use that as a reason not to have kids, the chance that they may be blind legally. Both of my brothers who have this disability live good lives. Not ideal, but whose is? Would the world be better if my brothers weren;t born because of the chance that they couldn't see? I don't think so.

 

I understand it is SO hard.

 

I hope you get a clearer understanding of your oldest child's issues soon so that you can make the wisest decision for your kids.

 

[Trish]

This is what I like about being Catholic.

[freesia]

I had forgotten about your oldest when I answered upthread. I really do think that you need to take his behavior into account very seriously. Like a pp I had a brother who had behavioral difficulties as a child. It did impact me significantly. Mostly the impact was the amount of energy and attention he got. I do understand that it's not a bad thing for children to learn that others have needs and require more attention, but it was really, really hard. It was hard that my mother tended to shield my brother and make excuses for him. I see this happening in families around me--he can't help being nasty to his brother/sister because of xyz but "brother/sister" needs to stop being nasty to him (bc s/he can being neurotypical. This is normal bc the mom wants someone to have it together.

 

Of course the children you have will be okay, but adding another will just take away from the attention that your neurotypical children get from you (and possibly make an unsafe situation for them as you will.not.be.able to supervise them well for a few months unless you consciously separate them while you nurse/settle the baby for a nap, change a diaper, etc. You will be scattered for a while).

 

What made my home situation better was that my parents and brother did family counselling. What would have made it even better is if my other brother and I had joined in the counselling. I really needed more attention from my parents and less excuses made for my brother. It did lead me down paths I shouldn't have gone (and all secret from my parents--I was the "good girl").

 

Physically you littles need you now, but emotionally they will need you more later and if your home has a lot of drama in it, it will be so difficult for you to "mother" your children the way you want.

 

I am sorry if this comes of harsh in any way; I do not intend that kind of tone. This is a trigger issue for me and I really want to advocate for your littles.

[happypamama]

I feel like family dynamics change with EVERY child.  The old family is gone, and the new family begins.  Each tiny human brings their own personality, needs, and quirks into the mix.

  

And before you know it, the "new" dynamic feels like the "regular" dynamic. You forget what life was like before...

 

Sorry, can't offer much advice because my 3rd and 4th came together.  :laugh:

So true -- each child changes things a little. Our fourth was so easy to add. He was easygoing, and he's cuddly, and he is petted on and doted on by the older kids. It really helped, too, that by that time, my older two were old enough to be really, really helpful. My fourth and fifth are only two years and one month apart, which is close for me, and while it was harder on ME to be pregnant with a young toddler, my big kids stepped up to help with number four. He and DD are very close.

 

Having four, and now five, means that there is always a spare brother around, lol. 1 and 2 can do their big kid things, and 3 isn't left out because he always has 4. 4 buddies up easily with 3 or snuggles with 5 or gets 1 to love on him. And so on.

[linders]

(Gently) I wouldn't begin to consider a 4th until Peter's issues are well-understood and well-controlled. I went back to a February post of yours, and his physical bullying of his brothers was extreme - slamming heads up against a wall, pushing down stairs. These aren't just minor infractions (I have 2 boys, I watch their scuffles), but could be life-damaging and life-threatening. As a PP said, you need to be fully available to protect the younger boys right now and help Peter.

 

I hope in time your family will be in a better place to reconsider this.  :grouphug:

[Alte Veste Academy]

Peter has a mental disability, and that clearly impacts his younger siblings. But does it impact them enough that they would be better off not having been born?

 

When do the minuses overshadow the pluses?

 

Is it right, or just or fair to bring a child into this world to face a known hardship? People have children even when there are bombs falling all around them. They have children even when they don't reliably have food to feed them. Is that selfish or irresponsible? I don't know.

Not all hardship is danger. Based on your past posts, Peter is a danger to your other children. Aside from this, I personally would not bring another child into the world when one needed more time and attention from me because obviously the addition of another child would leave me with less time.

 

What happens when they repeat the bullying (physical and emotional) over and over and over no matter how hard you try to supervise and intervene? And your words seems to go in one ear and out the other and have no impact on their behavior over months and years.

 

At what point do you have to enforce logical (or completely illogical) consequences? Loss of privileges? Time outs? At what point do you have to think to yourself, "I don't care if this damages my relationship to the bully; I have to stand up for the bullied, the innocent victim, who is also my child and deserves to feel safe in his home!!"

 

My mom, who is a huge fan of natural consequences, says that Elliot is going to get big enough that he will start beating on Peter every time Peter is terrorizing him. She says that that will be the natural, well-deserved, consequence of Peter's bullying...just like it used to work back in the day when all the neighborhood kids would play in the park unsupervised all summer.

 

That seems like a huge burden and responsibility to place on Elliot's shoulders, but it also seems unavoidable since none of us have come up with anything else that helps.

I recently finished reading The Explosive Child at the recommendation of several board members here and Peter's counselor. It was somewhat disheartening in some ways.

 

Also, the book did not address my main concern - how to keep the younger children safe when Peter frequently, out of thin air, hurts them with no provocation...not in a raging out of control way, but in a very matter-of-fact "I slammed his head against the wall 'cause I wanted to" kind of way.

 

...

 

I'm also unsure how to deal with Collaborative Problem Solving when there is another (younger, more vulnerable and impressionable) party involved in the situation. One day I started the problem solving by observing that he had been pushing Elliot down the stairs a lot.

 

As I started that conversation I felt sick in my soul that we had to brainstorm ways for Peter not to repeatedly, purposefully physically abuse his brother in a way that could cause serious, permanent injury. :crying:

 

His concern was simple, "I don't want him to win." My concern was simple, "I don't want him to get hurt." The obvious solution is never let Elliot win or go first or sit closest to us or play with a prized toy - but what does that do to Elliot (and Spencer down the road)? Maybe he's physically safer (then again, Peter hurts him in a lot of other ways as well), but what does that do to him emotionally?

These discussions always depress me. I spend every day trying so hard. I long to have less conflicts with Peter. It would be amazing if he learned from natural consequences or made decisions based on logic or empathy. Hell, it would be a step up for him to make decisions based solely on self interest rather than randomly lashing out, tantruming and self sabotaging over the weather, the color cup he himself chose from the cabinet, the fact that his shoes are wet after he jumps in a puddle that I warned him ahead of time would get his shoes wet, etc.

 

When I hear statements like this...

 

I have to think to myself, "they probably mean neurotypical kids." Or maybe, "just because it doesn't work that way for every non-neurotypical kid does not mean the parent is necessarily doing anything wrong."

 

Peter does not hear fear in my voice. Much of the time he is lost in his own world and doesn't hear my voice at all. He does not hear that his peers at the park or the library are so frustrated with his behavior that he is about to be walloped for being a jerk. He does not hear the baby screaming in pain as he "justs play with him".

 

Maybe I don't "get it". Maybe I am missing some instinct that would allow me to see eye to eye with him as he kicks my shins, throws blocks at my head and nonchalantly hurls the three year old down the stairs. I don't know. About the only thing I seem to know with him is that every doctor, therapist and psychiatrist agrees that he is not neurotypical. Over the years none of them has been able to steer Peter toward more adaptive behaviors, so I doubt the solution is as simple as some people (not pointing at anyone in particular) like to make it sound. I am, however, genuinely happy that it works for them, and that they do not need to deal with this level of frustration, uncertainty and concern every day.

I love supervision, but I have three kids and some non-negotiables that must be accomplished each day, so I cannot supervise all the children all the time.

 

We are leaving on a road trip first thing tomorrow so today I had to spend half an hour packing. I got the kids settled at the table with breakfast, I turned on a David Attenborough nature program for them and I went upstairs.

 

Elliot started screaming literally 30 seconds later. Peter had shoved Elliot off his chair for no reason. I comforted Elliot, put our luggage strap seat belt around Peter's lap and his chair (it doesn't really stop him from getting up if he wants to, but it acts as a reminder that he is expected to stay sitting), and went back upstairs.

 

...

 

It goes on like that all day, every day. I go to the bathroom for 30 seconds and come out to find that Peter is holding a pillow over the baby's face ("making a tent for him," Peter says). The other day I had Elliot in the kitchen with me while I was cooking dinner, but he walked out of the room and five minutes later when I went looking for him, Peter had shoved him out into the garage where he cut his head open on the garage step as he fell. Peter had then locked the garage door and casually gone back to reading a book.

 

There is no such thing as enough supervision for Peter. Even when DH and I are both here, and have our eyes on him 100% of the time, he still hurts people and destroys things. I try not to think of it as a choice he makes, but rather a compulsion in him. It seems like some primal part of his brain does these things for some instinctive reason without any input from high order thinking. He doesn't feel remorse, he doesn't see or hear how angry and frustrated the rest of the family is, he doesn't learn from natural or logical or arbitrary consequences.

I do not think it is fair to bring another child into a house in these circumstances. Your oldest is casually hurling his brother down the stairs and smothering the baby when you leave the room? My critical decision point would be danger, and what you have described in the past would take the discussion of adding another baby off the table at least until a solution was found and oldest was not actively harming his siblings. I do hope you are able to get your DS the help he needs. :grouphug: