Is There Such Thing as an Ideal Age Gap for Kids?

Hi Songbird, My experience is that my first 3 are all 1 year apart. I was young, in my 20's and had no problem with this. Many years later (14) I had 2 more 16 months apart. What I did learn is that no matter how much we try, it is not us that makes the plans. Start trying and whenever you are blessed with another child is when it will be :-) Grandma Mary

My first two children were 14.5 months apart, and my 2nd and 3rd are 3 1/2 years apart. I love the gap between the 2nd and 3rd. They are still close enough in age, that they play, but when you bring another newborn in the house, it is much easier not to have to worry about the other one wanting you constantly. The first two children, although not ideal spacing, went considerable well, before we knew it, we were totally out of diapers, and they were both great friends. However, as they get older, now 8 and 7, they are extremely competitive, despite being opposite sexes, and a lot of sports cross over, so it makes it that much harder. Overall, if I were to do it again, the 3 1/2 year spacing is ideal. hope that helps.

I only have one now and by the looks of things mine will be less than 5 yrs and 9 months apart if there is ever to be a number two. The good thing about it is that I did not have overlapping daycare and preschool expenses not to mention diapers.

On the flip side the age difference for me will be so huge. I like the 21+ spacing that way they will play together. I would go for it as long as everything else is o.k.

Every mom will have her own opinion because they only know what they've done and whether they think it was good for them or stressful. My two children were planned at 4 years apart and this was an excellent spacing for us for many reasons. I had no desire to have two "babies" at once. I didn't care about that 2 in diapers thing that everyone seems so concerned with, diapers weren't my issue. I was just glad to have a "big kid" when the next baby came, not be chasing a toddler when I was hugely pregnant and tired after work. The older one could dress herself, help herself to breakfast, etc. There were no jealousy issues when the baby was born, she was past the point of feeling that he was taking her place as the "baby." I had a limited time of paying double daycare. 3 or 4 years of that would have been impossible. Now they are turning 11 and 15. I've never had school conflicts because they were only in the same school once, for kindy and 4th grade. I've only had to pay for one in braces at a time, and I'll be done with the last one before we have to start ponying up for college for the first one (who will graduate when the second is ready to start). I found that when they were small, they spent more time together and played together more than I expected different gender kids with a four year age difference to do. And never any of those rivalry issues.
Close age doesn't mean close siblings as a guarantee. My oldest two sisters are 17 months apart, and once they got to school age, were not close, were not friends and had nothing in common.
Good luck

Mine are 13, 7, 5 and 1 - all of the various age gaps work and the kids are all good with each other at different stages. I really like the 6 year age gap because they can help and take care of each other and learn about taking care of the baby. The 2.5-3 year age gap produces a lot of screaming "get off your brother!"

My kids will be exactly four years apart. I think it is a personal choice and it depends are your circumstances. My hubby and I both work and we have no family near us, so this age difference works for us.

If you are ready, I say go for it!

I think that's a very personal decision...part of it can depend on your financial status, not only taking care of two "babies" but also having two kids in college. I had my first two 19 mos apart. It was an intentional decision. I was planning to leave my job, so I wanted to be home with "the kids" as much as possible.

Our third was born several years later, again on purpose. With two little ones, I had my hands full. Then with one in kindergarten and one in preschool I felt I could handle another one. Now I have two great helpers who love their baby SOOO much.

Bottomline is, I agree there are pros and cons both ways. If you do have your second sooner rather than later, you may want to plan to have some help in the beginning. The sleep deprivation can really get to you. So plan ahead to use a housecleaner, have your Mom help, etc. any way that you can get a break from all the household stuff and get some rest.

Good luck

I agree...it depends on the person...and I am sure there are pros and cons to both. I don't think it makes a difference in the fighting/getting along area. They will be siblings and that is just a part of it...lol.

My oldest boy was 3 when I had my daughter...that was a decent age difference. Not so far apart, but wasn't still completely dependent on me. Then we went even farther...about 4 years between my daughter and youngest son. I LOVE it...both kids independent...I can focus on the baby when I need to and they are patient (for the most part). I can't imagine having 2 in diapers...dealing with a baby AND potty training...middle of the night feedings AND daytime tantrums...no appeal to me whatsoever... :)

Another bonus is you don't lose all your babies at once! My oldest is in 1st grade, and my daughter will be starting school in the fall. I am so glad I will still have 4 more years with my little baby at home. Would be tough to lose them in consecutive years! Good luck...hope it all works out!

I had a baby and then 6 years later another baby then 15 months another one and then 6 more years another one lol. so I can tell you it was great having the first 2 6 years apart. older one was a huge help. i can tell you that the 15 months apart was great as we got rid of diapers, bottles, and baby equipment almost all at the same time. i can tell you that the last one 6 years after the other 3 was a pain in the butt. we had gotten rid of everything baby when the 3rd baby turned 5 after all i wasn't going to need it. but then we started over again. oldest is now 27 next two are both in college. youngest is going to high school this fall and is a joy. so i don't know that there is a perfect ideal age gap except whatever works for you. What is a concern though is whether you will be able to financially support children who are close in age range in school. We have the oldest one going to school to be a nurse. she went back to school late. we help her out some but she is out on her own. we have 2 in college this year its hard to make ends meet. next year one will be a senior at carthage college ($38000 a year) one a junior at northern illinois university $22000) and one in private highschool for another $10000. those costs will be only going up.

My kids are 8 YEARS apart and I love it.

I think 2 years would be best. mine were 18 months apart.. and the first year with an infant and a tolddler was really really hard..

but now they are 2 1/2 and 4 and it is a breeze..

I dont have much memories of my second child as a baby because I was sooo ssoo busy.. keeping up with 2 little ones.

I would try for more than 2 years apart..for your sanity..

In my experience, everyone likes what they have because babies are first unique individuals who you love uniquely. Enjoy your love for each other and the little one who comes from it. (and I haven't heard of 2 text book babies back to back - so it doesn't matter - you are in for some adventures!!!)

My boys are 20 months and 3 weeks apart (the little guy was born 3 weeks early, so we were expecting a 22+ month gap). It was a little bumpy once in a while just because a child under 2 does not always understand what is going on, but they are now 3 years old and 18 months, adore each other and have so much fun together. I wish we could have another with the same age gap but have to wait until my husband is out of school. :( Our first was an easy, happy baby, so responded pretty well to sharing mommy and daddy.

Myself and my sister....My husband and his brother....and all my kids are 2 yrs apart. So far, so good, for all of us.

My two are 16 months apart, and I think that it is easier to have them closer together. My daughter adores her little brother and he thinks she is the best thing going. They are 13 months and 29 months now and they play together all the time, especially since he is mobile now! I honestly think that there is a lot less jealousy when siblings are closer in age. Also, you are still in "baby mode," so changing diapers is routine and most of your baby items are not packed away yet. Of course, every family and every situation is different, but I really like having my children close together like this. It can be hard sometimes- going to the store alone with the kids is a definite challenge- but I feel that the benefits far outweigh the problems.

My first 2 are 34 months apart, and the next 2 are only 20 months apart, and the last 2 are 35 months apart. In my experience, the 3 year age difference worked WAY better than the less than 2 years. For one thing, both of the 3 year olds were totally potty trained before the new baby came, and thankfully didn't regress after the baby was born. Plus the 3 year old are fairly self sufficient and don't need quite as much help to do simple things, so you can devote the needed attention to the baby. All of my kids play together nicely, and the older ones teach the younger ones how to do things(both good and bad!) I personally feel the 3 year age difference is best. But one of my good friends has her kids much closer together, and seems to do fine. Good luck with your decision!

My first two are 4 years, 2 months apart and it looks like the next one will be over 4 years, maybe even 5 again. My boys get along great (they are now 7 and almost 3). My oldest loves being the protective big brother, teaching him everything he knows, but he also likes that he gets to do things the baby doesn't because he's a big boy (like go to the movie theater and play sports). This age gap is on the extreme side and that isn't how we originally planned it, but we make it work and since I refuse to give up my dream of having more babies, it will have to do. Our life circumstances have not allowed us to have children closer together. Oh well!

Honestly, I think that as long as you are raised to support and love your siblings, no matter the age, any gap will work. I am only 2 1/2 years from my sister and we can't stand each other, but we were never taught to put each other first. Personlities also play a big role... my husband is not close at all with his older brother (by 2 years) but his first call for anything in his life is to his sister (4 years older). They just have more in common.

Anyway, the best age gap is the one that works for your family!

Hello Songbird,

I am a parent coach and was a nanny for many years. I have either had charges from different families who were different ages apart or parents I coach who have talked about the challenges of different age spaces.

With children who are close together you have the advantage of nap times often are similar, they can sometimes play well together and they will often like the same type of toys.

Have children close together can be challenging too, because they both need so much attention, and they have a hard time understanding WHY Mom can't pay 100% attention to them. As they grow, they can feel a loss of idenity, because they are so close.

I worked with girls who were about a year a part, and they were always mistaken as twins. The oldest child always felt that she was not a single person but one of two. They often had the same friends, and it was hard to schedule seperate playdates etc. Both girls felt this was unfair.

Having children with an age gap, (3+ years), can also be difficult. One family talked how they have to leave the park for nap time, even though thier oldest doesn't nap anymore. Their oldest also cannot have lego's because of the small parts. Have an age gap often means the kids won't "be friends" as young children, because they won't have anything in common.

However, having an age gap is often easier on Mom, because they older child can emotionally handle another child as well as Mom focusing on the baby. Older children are also able to play alone longer, which is easier on Mom.

I hope these answers helped.

R. Magby

I think about a 3.5 year spacing is good, give or take 6 months. This is what we were trying for but I got pregnant just about instantly with the second one so they are 34 months apart. They are 4 and 14 months now. They are starting to play a bit more now but the first 6-9 months was hard. My older one is not especially mature for his age so we tried and weren't able to get him potty trained or into preschool before the second baby came.

My only sister 4.5 years younger which is a little too long to always play together (my parents were trying for a 3 year gap but it took a while). Plus she was born literally the week I started Kindergarten (my dad had to take me the first day because mom was still in the hospital). That set up some sibling rivalry. I also still remember a fair amount about before my sister was born which a child under 3 would probably not.

Some people love the 18 month age difference but my older one is a real handful and very high energy and I would not have been able to keep up with him between 1 and 2 if I had been pregnant. He got a lot easier to manage between 2 and 2.5. I found that a 9 month old is in some ways less work than an active toddler under 2.

BTW my grandma had 5 kids all 4 years apart on average (16 years between oldest and youngest) but the ones closer to 3.5 years are closer as adults than the ones closer to 4.5 years, although personalities have some role. My mom, the oldest, barely remembers the younger 2 as kids and only became close with them as an adult.

Although it is completely up to you, my kids are 2 years 9 months apart and I think that is ideal. My son was potty trained before my daughter was born, was completely out of a crib and in a regular bed and done with all of the baby necessities she needed which made less stuff for us to buy. The only thing we needed to buy was a double stroller. Also now ( he is 4 1/2 and she is 21 months) they play together very nicely. He loves to teach her and she is really good a sharing (since she has had to her whole life). Hope this helps and whatever you choose, just know that it is nice for your child to have a sibling. Best of luck.

I have two boys and they are 3 years apart. I find that this is ideal. My oldest helps me with the little one when I need help. He teaches him and plays with him. I see that when raising one seperately you begin to understand how it all works and when the second one comes you are ready because you have experience. Another thing is that my oldest is now in school so that gives me somewhat of a break. Having two children so close together means that you will have them both with you for a long time.

I would say there are pros and cons to any age difference. Closer together will be harder in the short term but maybe easier in the long term because they'll play together sooner. Farther apart is much easier short term and the big sibling can "help" and may be less jealous. But in the long run, they'll play less growing up. And of course, even if they are very close or very far apart in age, they may not get along or they might be best friends. You just never know! Our girls ended up being exactly 2.5 years and 1 day apart. My oldest is now 4.5 and the baby will be 2 in April. In the last few months they have really started to enjoy each other but they fight and compete for attention too. Either way, nature will end up deciding for you. :) Have fun!

My personal opinion is that kids that are about 2 years apart have more in common as they grow up than ones that are 3 years apart. I was a nanny for a lady with 7 kids. They were born every "even" year except one who was born in the next year (odd) from one of the "evens". Those two had more in common and were inseperable. They had the same clothes, the same toys, the same friends at school, the next child was again born in an even year and he was like an only child. There was nearly 3 years between those two.

I have a 2.5 yr gap between my first two and only a 18 month gap between #2 and #3. The longer gap does make things a little easier but I also liked the idea of the two little ones being closer in age. It was tough having a 13 month old walking around while trying to nurse an infant but you make do. I enlisted the help of a mommys helper to be around to help out with the children when I was nursing etc. My fourth came 2.5 yrs after my 3rd. and again that was a little easier. If you want them closer in age than go for it. The first few months when the baby needs you all the time will be tough but the time goes fast and before you know it you will be in a good routine that works for all of you. Good luck.

Our sons are 35 months apart and it's been good ... the main thing we're discovering now is that just when they would have the same drop-off time at daycare, our older one is heading off to kindergarten, so only a 4-month overlap in the same preschool. Looking ahead, the way our schools are broken up, having one 3 years ahead means them almost never going to the same school, which is kind of sad and is a pain for parents -- adds an hour each day for dropping off at separate times/locations. We're thinking of holding our older son back a year from kindergarten just for those reasons.

We had read that a 3-year age gap is best emotionally/psychologically (see The Portable Pediatrician -- it gives a portrait of "bringing home a new baby" at each age level for the older sibling). Our older son still struggled at the birth of the younger, but he was fine with everyone except me, which made everyone else say how wonderful he was with the new baby. My point being, have support for you and the older child in the months after giving birth no matter what the age.

I'm not sure there is a perfect gap, but I'm pretty happy with my kids' gap.
My sons are 20-1/2 months apart and are best friends. They will go off to their room for hours and play alone really well together. They're now 5 & 3. The first year though was Hard Hard Hard! They both had such important demands (potty training #1 and mommy-time vs. nursing #2 and newborn needs) that the age gap seemed to be too small.
My third child came when the 2nd was 23 months old (the oldest was 3-1/2) and this gap seemed easier at the beginning, but is now after a year starting to get harder as she climbs and knocks over their Legos and gets in the way of their play. Play groups are tough with the oldest and the youngest because they don't have much in common yet.

My children are 23 months apart and I love it.

In my family (sister, SIL and cousins), the discussion always comes up at family reunions, with a big split between the ones favoring longer gaps (with kids 4-6 years apart) and the ones favoring shorter gaps (1-2 years).
The arguments are basically the ones you have seen in the posts below. But, ALL of them say they wouldn't do it other wise and love their family as it is.
Whether because the kids are close in age and can do so many things together, or because they can have more one-one time with each of them, the oldest being at school)

For my experience, 23 months apart works well. They have around 45-60 minutes common nap time and one-on-one with me when the other naps.

My son doesn't have any "forbidden" toy. He has some toys with small pieces that he can only play with when his sister naps. He also keeps all paper books on a higher shelf, so she won't tear them apart and can access only board books (they share the same room)

Check your priorities (basically you having more time with each of them when young or them having more time together/sharing toys and maybe friends...)
And good luck.