Hooray for siblings

Although often stereotyped as spoiled rotten misfits, only children usually turn out just fine, wrote Andrea Petersen in The Wall Street Journal.

Recent research on Chinese schoolchildren---conducted in an effort to refute the idea that only children often turn out to be "little Napoleons"---indicates that not only is being an only child OK, only children also are sometimes more confident, have better vocabularies, do better in school, and are closer to their parents. Carl Pickhardt, child psychologist and author of The Future of Your Only Child, said only children can be "worthy adversaries" during arguments. "Being an only child is a neat way to grow up," he added.

Citing the National Center for Health Statistics, Petersen notes that between the years of 1990 and 2006, families with only one child have increased from 11.4 percent to 18.3 percent: "The growth is being spurred by more later-in-life marriage and child-bearing. Financial concerns are also at play. As the cost of diapers, child-care and college degrees keep their steady march northward, some parents are deciding it's just too expensive to have that second kid."

All that Petersen says may be true. The research may indeed show no significant differences between the childhoods of onlies and those raised with siblings. But I can't help feeling that Petersen (herself admittedly the parent of a 16-month-old "who, for various reasons, will probably be an only child") is seeking---and finding---exactly what she wants to hear.

This article may comfort parents who, through no choice of their own, have only one child. But my fear is that research like this will only prove to validate the decisions of parents who have, for less than noble reasons, chosen to limit their families to only one child.

No one I know, including my own family, makes enough money to adequately provide for their children, according to the "experts." Online childhood cost calculators say raising a child to 18 in the United States costs at least $200,000. And that's without college. No wonder diligent parents who do their "research" balk at a second child.

Let's be honest: Having children is inconvenient. The little beasts get in the way of our big plans, our higher education, our attempt to "arrive." But in our later years we feel something is missing, so tack on a single baby to the end of our vibrant career like a cherry on a sundae. With research like this, now we can do it without guilt.

When we had our first and second children, our income was $21,000. We were young and were stupid enough to think our babies made us rich, no matter what the bank account said. We didn't buy baby haute couture or prime rib every night and our house was 500 square feet, but we managed. Babies three through six have come alongside career ups and downs. Ironically, the "richest" time of our life brought the least satisfaction, the least joy for us as a family.

So, perhaps I am defending my choice to have a big family as much as Petersen is defending her choice to have an only child, but what I see amongst my children every day says otherwise.

I (and I suspect other big families) don't need a study or a book to accurately quantify the value and sheer joy of hearing a Suburban-full of kids singing "Happy Birthday" at the top of their lungs to their 14-year-old brother or piling on top of each other in a big giggling heap on the trampoline or cooing together over the new kittens.

Siblings are one of the greatest gifts we can give our kids. If only we will.