What is the hardest number of kids to have?

[mommyoffive]

In your opinion what is the hardest number of kids to have?

 

Do you agree with the survey?

According to a 2013 "TODAY Parents" survey of more than 7,000 parents, three is the most stressful number of children to have. 

I'm a Mom of Four, but Having One Kid Is Harder Than Any Other Number of Children (parents.com)

[bookbard]

Anecdotally I would agree, that's when people I know seem to collapse in a heap. I only have 2 though. 

[maize]

Too many variables to make a generic statement.

How old are the children? How far apart in age? Does the parent enjoy caring for babies and toddlers? Are the children neurotypical? Neurodivergent? Easy-going? Struggling with health issues? 

Two was really hard for me--my oldest two were both pretty high-needs infants and toddlers, I was perpetually sleep-deprived, and while I love babies and toddlers they do not provide the kinds of interaction and mental stimulation I crave. By the time the third came along, my oldest was getting old enough that I could enjoy interacting with her in ways that were more interesting to me. And by the time I had child 5 or 6 I wasn't having to personally provide all the stimulation craved by the babies and toddlers--their older siblings were interacting with them a lot and they didn't need mom-mom-mom every waking moment of the day.

So for me,  while seven kids ranging from infant through teens was certainly challenging, it really was the two littles phase that was hardest. I'm an introvert by nature, and their constant and relentless need for my attention was very, very draining. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by maize

[rebcoola]

So subjective adding has been easy peasy but thats partially because of the huge gap 

[JustEm]

For us, 2 was the hardest. But that is mostly because my second child was the most difficult in the early years. Adding the next 4 was barely an issue after going through our second. I often say if she was our first we wouldn't have had more.

Thankfully, she is no longer difficult.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Having or adding? Because she’s talking about adding, and I agree with her that none to one was the hardest. I joked to DH after our third and last that most people quit just when they really start to know what they’re doing. At that point, I felt like adding more was relatively easy compared to going from none to one and then one to two.
 

Having? I don’t know. It’s probably different at different stages, I think.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Alte Veste Academy

[SHP]

One less than you had yesterday 

[Clarita]

As a mother of 2, the first one was the hardest. I had mine close together and enough (1.5yrs) so that the two blur right together, but I had a constant helping hand (well he was inconsistent but always there). To me it seems like it would be hard to have a large age gap.

 

[gardenmom5]

I'd like to know how many children these people have.  If they only have three, and say three is the hardest . . . that's bad data.

1ds (#3) was a super easy baby, and was a piece of cake.  I have five.

[lovinmyboys]

I think going from 0-1 was most life changing, but adding the third was the hardest for me. Dh was deployed (well when he was 2 weeks old) and he was just my most challenging until he was around 7. Thankfully he is super easy to raise now, but those first years were rough! So much depends on other circumstances. Having my fourth was super easy, but I stopped there.

[SKL]

My mom had 6, but she said that everything was very manageable with 1, 2, and 3, but #4 was the one that upset the balance.  However, I think there were other issues wirh #4, including PPD and more oppositional attitudes than the first three had.  #5 was even more of a brat.  #6 was super easy, and I wonder what she would have thought about this if #6 had been #4.

I only have 2, which has turned out to be a good number for me.  I am older and likely to get tired with more kids.

However, I think 1 would be a relatively hard number to have, because a single kid doesn't have built-in companions.

 

 

[SKL]

Oh, I also think it may depend in part on what else the main caregiver (usually mom) has going on besides kids.  Does she work full-time, are any special needs involved, is there much help from a 2nd (or third etc.) adult?  Does she have excellent daycare?  Do the kids sleep???

[Ginevra]

Also agree with too many variables. If you’re a teenager with no supports when you have your first, that’s going to be much harder than if you’re 30. If they are spread out over twenty years, that’s easier than if they’re all bunched together. And if you yourself are going through a medical crisis, a trauma, financial change, mental health crisis…it does not matter if is #1 or #9. It’s hard to parent when you are man down. 
 

From my observation, my own mom had a crisis when #4 was little. She lost her spark for a few years. But things that were happening in her life no doubt influenced that. 
 

When my #4 was born, I was in deep grief from losing my #3. It wasn’t hard in the way my previous babies had been but I was suffering and going through the motions. I was as good a mom to #4 as to #1 and #2, but it’s true that was a period of cocooning for me personally. I was home with the youngest a lot. 

[Eos]

4 hours ago, SHP said:

One less than you had yesterday 

 

54 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

When my #4 was born, I was in deep grief from losing my #3.

I'm so sorry.  I'm grieving with my ddil when I think that 0 is the hardest number.

 

[Tenaj]

For us I would say number one was hard because we had to adjust to a baby and a loss of spontaneity.  Number 3 was hard because that's when we became out numbered.

Other babies were hard because of their personalities but that's just the way babies are 🙂

[teachermom2834]

I can’t even start to answer this question. I have four but it seems in my case to be all about the individual child and now easy or not he was and the other conditions of our life at the time.

[scholastica]

The number you have. One has nothing else to which to compare. 

[Carrie12345]

It’s not numbers, it’s needs. That said, mine was 3, lol. I had a colicky baby born 13 months after a colicky baby while going through autism evals with a preschooler in a small apartment with little money and a husband who traveled for work a lot.

Adding #4 3.5 years later was a breeze.

[fairfarmhand]

Totally depend on the kids. I could have a dozen like my second and fourth and not be as tired/stressed like I was with number 1

[MercyA]

Zero

[73349]

I agree, depends on the kids and the parents. Some couples stop when they realize their budget or home size won't support more at the standard they feel is appropriate; some when they meet their match in terms of needs (emotional, medical, whatever); some for other reasons. Every addition is a roll of the dice.

[alysee]

4 was the hardest but I had 4 kids in 3 years so that makes sense. It was also really hard going from 1-2 because they were only 18mo apart. 5 felt easy and 6 has been hard but that's mostly because my kids range in ages from 0-13 so they all have very different needs. 6 is not unmanageable but it's for sure my max based on the physical and emotional needs of my kids. Oh! And depending on kids personalities it can make it easier or harder. My first and fifth are rule followers. My second one is not. My twins are somewhere in between.

Edited November 16, 2023 by alysee

[historically accurate]

I don't know; I have three, so I couldn't tell you if 5 is more difficult or what. All of mine were a big adjustment and had things that made the transition difficult.

My first was the hardest baby; she needed WAY more stimulation than anyone could provide. Fortunately, she learned to walk at 9 months, and then she could entertain herself easier. She was diagnosed ASD/ADHD as an adult. She was a super easy kid, but her teen years were a little difficult. She's not an easy adult yet though.

Second was the worst pregnancy - I almost lost her twice, and my dad was dying at the time. She was an "easy" baby though until we realized she was easy because she wasn't reaching her milestones on time. Early Intervention came in on her second birthday, and she was in PT/ST for years. She was hands down my hardest teen. She seems to be maturing a little now though.

Third was the easiest pregnancy, but she had a kidney issue that needed surgery as an 8 month old and took medication for 18 months that caused her to not sleep for longer than an hour. I literally don't know how I made it through her first 19 months of life (I don't remember much truthfully). She's only 1 1/2 years younger than middle too, so I was dealing with a 5 year old whom I was trying to homeschool (partially because I knew that there was no way I could make the drive or even a set bus time 2x a day with all I had going on), a toddler in EI, and a sleeping-like-a-newborn infant for a solid year of life. She was a fairly easy kid, and by far, my easiest teen.

Edited November 16, 2023 by historically accurate

[Momto6inIN]

Your first is always hard because your world is rocked and you have no idea what you're doing.

For us #3 was the hardest. I joke that we had to switch from a man to man defense to a zone defense and that transition was difficult 🤪

After #3 the rest just folded in to the family routine easily, even if they were individually difficult babies. If you can have 3, you can have 6. My sil who has 12 agrees and says if you have 3 you can have 12.

[EKS]

How does anyone answer this question?  You only know the number you know at the stage you had them.  If that makes sense.

I'm agreeing with those who said going from zero to one is the hardest.  That said, my older one was almost six when the younger one was born.  If he had been, say, one instead, I don't know how I would have handled that!

I always found it funny how people were always all worried about the labor and delivery part of having a baby.  I was always worried about the part the came after--the next 18+ years!  And I will say that being 27 years into this thing, I now know I was right!

[Boymama5]

The number you have…

[ScoutTN]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Zero

This! 

[maize]

41 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

Your first is always hard because your world is rocked and you have no idea what you're doing.

For us #3 was the hardest. I joke that we had to switch from a man to man defense to a zone defense and that transition was difficult 🤪

After #3 the rest just folded in to the family routine easily, even if they were individually difficult babies. If you can have 3, you can have 6. My sil who has 12 agrees and says if you have 3 you can have 12.

My mom used to say "If you have one child,  they will take all your time. If you have ten children, they can only take all your time." 

She had ten 😊

[wisdomandtreasures]

Well... My five youngest combined are easier than my oldest alone.

[Elizabeth86]

For me? 2 😂 I thought I was going to die when I had a new baby and a 1.5 year old. It’s been easy since ds 2 got out of the baby stage. I think it all has to do with age spacing and personality. I have 5 and I don’t think it’s any harder than having 2. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Elizabeth86

[Elizabeth86]

13 minutes ago, wisdomandtreasures said:

Well... My five youngest combined are easier than my oldest alone.

Same. What is it about that firstborn? 

[Katy]

Between bio & fostering, our family size has varied dramatically over the years. How easy or hard it is completely depends on the individual kids. 

[Faith-manor]

It is all about needs. Dd would say that 1 was the hardest. She has 3 now. But her first was born early, jaundiced, major feeding problems - just awful - and she was absolutely exhausted that first year. He is still her most challenging child and has some sensory issues. Her second is a little independent happy go lucky kid, easy peasy so far. And though youngest was 6 weeks early and 4 weeks in the hospital, he is also turning out to have a very easy disposition.

Unless a person is quiverful, like the Duggars or Bates, and continues to have more children than any two adults can responsibly raise and monitor without parentifying the other children, I don't think the number is the issue.

[wintermom]

Obviously, there are a ton of variables to consider in measuring "what is hardest." One baby may be a big adjustment at the start, but over time I'd guess it's far easier. As that child ages, you adapt and you never have to deal with adding more bodies to the mix. Your home, car, and money only ever has to deal with the one child. You don't have to figure out how to stop siblings from bugging each other, how to juggle multiple extra-curricular, and so on through the years.

My vote that one child is going to be the easiest number to have no matter what, and the "hardest" amount increases exponetially with each additional child. More kids means more of everything and more interactions between bodies in the family - the good and the tough. 

[Jaybee]

Agree with too many variables. Yes, with Mercy, none can be heartbreaking. One was easy, but I was really ready for the second--I like it when there are playmates. I never had just three, because we went from two to four, twins. We were so excited to have them, we just adjusted. Five was easy-peasy, because his nearest sibs in age were seven years older, and they were all four so crazy about him, almost all I had to do was feed him. Six had some challenges due to adoption issues, but overall he/we adjusted well, and it was so great to have him and feel our family was complete. I did not really have one child that stands out as being too much harder than the others; it was more stages, here. This or that one would be in a hard stage for several years, then would come out of it in time for another to jump in.🤪

I am not a person who needs to get out and about a lot, and was very happy having our daily routines center around the children. Except for the colicky first three months with the oldest, my babies all slept well and were easy-going. I had a friend whose babies were so high strung and had very high pitched cries/screams. No wonder I found mothering so much easier! Things like that make such a huge difference. When our twins arrived, I just knew that they were my job at that time, and I was not going to feel guilty or frustrated because I couldn't get out and do all the things. But my dh was so involved, I was able to have house help at the time, and we lived in a walkable town. 

Most of my kids' growing up years, we did not live where tons of extra curricular activities were the thing, so being the chauffeur for six kids' ballgames, concerts, etc., was not part of the picture. (They did participate in some of those things, but the setting was different). I was a SAHM and a homeschooler most of the years, so I did not have to juggle daycare, school drop-off and pickup (most years), or trying to figure out who was going to stay home with the sick kid. All of those things make a difference, too. I could not have handled six kids well if I'd had to manage what a lot of people have to manage.

[Condessa]

It really depends on the kid.  Transitioning from parenting two to three was the hardest adjustment as a mom having babies.  Just learning to balance the needs of more little people than you have hands was tricky.  I have five bio kids.
 

But when we had our foster kids, eight was absolutely the hardest.  Eight was 500% harder than parenting seven, even though we were dealing with ds’s cancer diagnosis simultaneously with going from eight to seven.  But that was a function of K’s personality and attachment issues, not the number.

[SKL]

I remember my granny saying that she would take all six of my mom’s kids at once rather than just watch my uncle’s one son.  That kid was a tornado.  His mom didn’t have a second.  🙂

[KungFuPanda]

15 hours ago, SHP said:

One less than you had yesterday 

So so so very hard.

[Terabith]

I've read a few articles that said three is the hardest number, and I will admit that I think that is correct from what I've seen from friends.  The transition from zero to one is life changing, but everyone expects that.  And one to two is really hard, but if you're a two parent household, you can tag team.  But once you get to three you're outnumbered and have to switch to playing zone versus man on man, but after three, it seems like it's not a huge deal to add more other than the logistics and money.

I really wanted more than two kids, but my husband's arguments about economics were compelling, especially that if we had a third we'd have to switch to a van.  The world is far more oriented towards groups of four than five or more.  

[teachermom2834]

Well when I had my second i lived in an 450 sq ft upstairs apartment with no washer and dryer. I remember when he would have a big blowout and get his car seat cover all gross and there I am with a toddler and an infant and poopy laundry that I had to go to a laundry facility down two flights of stairs to get to with the babes in tow. So that was not the easiest. 
 

Then number three was an easy baby (and I had my own washer and dryer!) but he was hell on wheels from 2-12 yo so…

Number four came along and by then I had ARRIVED…I had a washer and a dryer and a dishwasher!!! So that was pretty cool. But I had three boys ages 10, 8, and 5 ( Mr. hell on wheels) while managing baby girl. I honestly don’t remember any trouble adjusting to her at all. Because I can’t freaking remember anything from that time. I must have been so tired/busy/ just keeping my head above water I truly hardly remember details of her infancy. So I am remembering it as easy but I could be a big liar and I just blocked it out. 
 

 

[kathyl]

9 hours ago, wisdomandtreasures said:

Well... My five youngest combined are easier than my oldest alone.

Same here.  

My oldest was an only child for 9 years and then we had 5 more.  The oldest was definitely the hardest for me.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, teachermom2834 said:

Well when I had my second i lived in an 450 sq ft upstairs apartment with no washer and dryer. I remember when he would have a big blowout and get his car seat cover all gross and there I am with a toddler and an infant and poopy laundry that I had to go to a laundry facility down two flights of stairs to get to with the babes in tow. So that was not the easiest. 
 

Then number three was an easy baby (and I had my own washer and dryer!) but he was hell on wheels from 2-12 yo so…

Number four came along and by then I had ARRIVED…I had a washer and a dryer and a dishwasher!!! So that was pretty cool. But I had three boys ages 10, 8, and 5 ( Mr. hell on wheels) while managing baby girl. I honestly don’t remember any trouble adjusting to her at all. Because I can’t freaking remember anything from that time. I must have been so tired/busy/ just keeping my head above water I truly hardly remember details of her infancy. So I am remembering it as easy but I could be a big liar and I just blocked it out.

I was my mom's #3.  She said having 3 was easy and I was easy individually.  However, when I asked her questions like, how old was I when I took my first steps, what were my first words ... she said by that time she had so many kids that she didn't remember all that!

[SKL]

TBH I haven't ever experience having 1 kid.  I started out with 2 kids, ages 9mos and 12mos, at age 41 (single mom).  😛

Life changing, heck yeah, but as others have said, that's expected (and kinda the whole point).  I had the usual past experience (babysat younger sibs and other kids), so I was confident.  Back then I wished I could have more kids eventually, kuz I thought having 2 would be too boring.  😛

I started out trying too hard, but I figured it out and really never felt overwhelmed with being "outnumbered."  But, my kids were naturally calm kids for the most part.  I might have different thoughts if they'd been high energy, poor sleepers, or similar.

Another single mom in the adoption world had a blog called "outnumbered."  😛  She adopted at least 3 boys and seemed to be handling it well ... though I don't know her in person.

[PronghornD]

Zero was by far the hardest for me -- and I had zero for ten years or so, so I am qualified to testify to that. One newly adopted kid was hard too, but I felt as if I'd finally jumped into the stream of life. When I had zero, I was in the desert of life.

[TechWife]

One was hard. Moreso than many people would think.

My mom said after two she didn’t notice a difference. There were five of us altogether.

Edited November 17, 2023 by TechWife

[Jaybee]

20 minutes ago, TechWife said:

One was hard. Moreso than many people would think.

My mom said after two she didn’t notice a difference. There were five of us altogether.

When I was a teenaged babysitter, I always found one to be harder, with the exception of the family with four wild boys (that I never ever again babysat!). The "ones" wanted my full-on attention the whole time. I always gave the kids my attention, so I'm not talking about my not being attentive, but I mean the sucking-the-life-out-of-you-interact-with-every-single-thing-I-do-and-say kind of attention. They were sweet kids, but it wore me out. My favorite families were the ones with three, so I planned to have three kids. But six was even better.

I've heard people say, "What's one or two more?" when talking about having an extra kid along. Personally, I could see saying that with adding another to the family, but I definitely felt the difference of one or two more when it was kids from a different family. It changed the dynamic, and I found it stressful.

[Ausmumof3]

I have to fully admit I didn’t read the article so how did they measure? I think three would be a common answer because it’s a really common number of kids to have. Bigger families may be harder but there’s less people who experience it to know?

I think there’s so many factors that change this anyway. Financial situation, extra needs, medical or social difficulties, relationship status, age spread. 

[matrips]

I wouldn’t know. I went from 0 to 3 with my triplets 🤷‍♀️.  
I do know it wasn’t easy though 😂

[BlsdMama]

Depends on the personality of the kids. Currently we have six at home. It is middle school mock trial season. My two high school kids coach. My middle schooler competes. Play is just finishing up. Both high schoolers are dual enrolled in college courses. They are never home lately so I effectively have three -ages 12, 10, 9. Never in my life have I found daily functioning - cleaning up, laundry, meals, errands, basic homeschooling this challenging to direct. And the 12yo doesn’t have an “oldest” personality. Ai yi. 11 was far easier!

[BusyMom5]

I have six kids, and I think this is just a bad question.  Number of kids hasn't been the issue, but personality and situations have.  

Hardest times as a mom, 4 year old, 2 year old and newborn twins.  I barely remember that year because I was so sleep deprived.  By the time twins were 2, it was so much easier.  Next hardest has been lately- Grade schooler (Caboose Baby), Middle Schooler, 2 high schoolers, 2 college aged.  It's like my brain cannot switch fast enough to meet all their needs.