Poor little Natalie. She's child number three of four (all born within five years of each other).
When you have that many kids that close together, child number three gets the short end of the stick. It's impossible to keep track of a five-year-old, a four-year-old, and a two-year-old who doesn't care how far away she runs or who might be following her--so the two year old gets strapped into the stroller, rides in the shopping cart or gets carried by Daddy.
This, of course, just makes her want to run more.
I feel bad about this almost every day. I know Natalie needs her freedom. She needs to be able to run and explore, and she needs to be able to do so while properly supervised, so she can stay safe while she is running and exploring (something a two-year-old can't, obviously, do on her own).
How can we manage this when we have a four-year-old and a five-year-old to look after? They don't have the same running away issues, but together they require at least one parent's undivided attention. Natalie alone requires one person's undivided attention, and now that we have five-month-old Henry there just aren't enough parents to go around.
We've even resorted to that one evil I said I would never bow to--the dreaded child leash. Sure it's a cute little backpack, but it's still a leash. I still feel like I'm walking my baby. She handles it OK; it's better than the stroller, still not as good as absolute freedom.
I try to justify restraining poor Natalie by telling myself that the trade off is that she will have two very close older siblings and one baby brother, all of whom will be her friends and playmates as she grows up. It's a pretty good justification, but it doesn't stop my heart from breaking every time my husband takes the two older children outside and Natalie has to stay inside with me and the baby because there are just too many two-year-old hazards in our backyard (a pond, horses, potential rattlesnake habitat, ticks, occasional mountain lions). I just don't think risking her life is worth avoiding a few tears.
If she were our only child it would be a different story. But she's not our only child.
That's a wonderful thing. For us, it's meant a lot of sacrifices--sacrifices that I was more than willing to make and would gladly make again if I had to do it all over again. What I didn't anticipate, though, was that Natalie would have to make sacrifices, too. And sometimes it just doesn't seem fair to ask a two-year-old to make sacrifices.
I just hope when she gets older, she'll understand.
Life with two under two (plus two) is fun and fulfilling, but sometimes I really miss those days in the hospital with my newborn. I miss the break from responsibility (how funny is it to have a newborn yet feel like you're getting a break from responsibility), I miss the 24/7 room service, I even miss the awful hospital food (I loved lifting the heavy plastic lid off of my tray and discovering what disgusting concoction I was expected to eat, for the sole reason that I wasn't the one who had to cook the disgusting concoction).
I think the thing I miss most about the hospital, though, is that feeling of total commitment. During those four days after my c-section, I was able to commit myself to my baby 100%. I had no other kids pulling me in several different directions, I never had to put my baby down and let him cry while I changed someone else's diaper or refilled a sippy cup, I never got distracted from the all-consuming task of loving my new baby.
I'll never regret two under two or even four under five, but that small gap between children does make those early days complicated. When Dylan was a baby, I never put him down. He didn't touch the floor at all until he was three months old, and then when I put him down on a blanket I was always down there with him. I had that luxury because I didn't have to worry that my toddler would throw something at him, I didn't have to get up and tend to a dispute between my four year old and my five year old, and I didn't have to think about what to make for anyone's lunch except my own. I had all the time in the world and I could devote every minute to my only child.
Some days I envy moms who spaced their children out. I know one mom who put 10 years between her kids, another one who waited 14 years and one who has 18 years between her two. They all had the luxuries of raising only children and the blessings of having multiple children. They had babysitters already on call in their homes. They had a little bit of the chaos of raising a child but none of the chaos that comes with two under two.
Of course, as a first time mom at 33 I never had the luxury of time, so putting even 10 years between my children would have been really out of the question. But if I'd started having kids in my early 20s would I have chosen any differently? My sister and I had 15 months between us, so the concept of two under two never seemed odd to me. In fact, when I had my first two 15 months apart and started hearing criticism about it, I was surprised that anyone would find it strange.
So yes, sometimes I wish I could go back to those hospital days. It was like the Ritz Carlton compared to my house, and Henry and I were first class guests. But then I remember how it felt when my husband and my other three kids walked out of our room after a visit, how much I missed them before the door had even closed behind them. Sure, life with two under two is tough, and it's even tougher with four under five. But even the Ritz Carlton isn't as good as home.