I've been thinking a lot about birth order lately.
Lily and Oli are only 14.5 months apart, so the chances of us adopting a child (or children) between our two biological kids is slim to nil. Unless we "twinned" a kid, which I don't think we would. More on that later.
Some say interrupting the birth order of your biological children when adopting additional children is a no-no.
Your first born should be your first born, they say.
But that hardly solves the problem of the youngest.
What about the second/last born?
Their birth order is thrown out the window when you adopt children younger than your existing children, and that's supposed to be the solution to the "birth order predicament"?
Did I miss something or is that the exact same scenario, just with a different biological child?
When the time comes for us to adopt, we know a couple of things for certain.
We don't want to adopt a newborn baby.
We don't want or need to parent a child from birth for them to be part of our family and very much ours.
We are open and almost excited about the idea of adopting siblings.
The ideal age range would be between 18 months and 5 years.
But we aren't sure of birth order. If we adopted siblings, would we wait until both of those children were younger than our youngest? That could take a very long time since Oli is only 3 months old. Not that we want to adopt tomorrow, but we also don't want to wait 6 years.
Would we adopt siblings who were both older than Lily and Oli? That might make things harder to integrate.
Would we adopt siblings, one who is older than Lily, and the other younger than Oli?
What do you think?
Would you adopt a child or children older than your bio kids?
Or younger? Or do you even care? Or would you "twin" a kid (adopt one the same age as one of your bio kids)?
Lily and Oli are only 14.5 months apart, so the chances of us adopting a child (or children) between our two biological kids is slim to nil. Unless we "twinned" a kid, which I don't think we would. More on that later.
Some say interrupting the birth order of your biological children when adopting additional children is a no-no.
Your first born should be your first born, they say.
But that hardly solves the problem of the youngest.
What about the second/last born?
Their birth order is thrown out the window when you adopt children younger than your existing children, and that's supposed to be the solution to the "birth order predicament"?
Did I miss something or is that the exact same scenario, just with a different biological child?
When the time comes for us to adopt, we know a couple of things for certain.
We don't want to adopt a newborn baby.
We don't want or need to parent a child from birth for them to be part of our family and very much ours.
We are open and almost excited about the idea of adopting siblings.
The ideal age range would be between 18 months and 5 years.
But we aren't sure of birth order. If we adopted siblings, would we wait until both of those children were younger than our youngest? That could take a very long time since Oli is only 3 months old. Not that we want to adopt tomorrow, but we also don't want to wait 6 years.
Would we adopt siblings who were both older than Lily and Oli? That might make things harder to integrate.
Would we adopt siblings, one who is older than Lily, and the other younger than Oli?
What do you think?
Would you adopt a child or children older than your bio kids?
Or younger? Or do you even care? Or would you "twin" a kid (adopt one the same age as one of your bio kids)?
