The first and thirddon't particularly strike me as interesting. But the second is both well composed and technically easy to get wrong. If you can build on that, you'll be a serious photographer.
I suppose that some folks will dredge up the "rule" of thirds on the second image --supposedly one wants to place the main subject somewhere on theedge of the rectangle that would be formed if you inscribed a tic-tac-toe board onthe image. While that is often a useful framing consideration, the thing that makes it work here is that there is also a reason to look at the other two thirds of the image -- a point often overlooked by those who mindlessly repeat the rule of thirds. Personally, I think that one is better served by learning to "see" what is in thier viewfinder. If it feels balanced and visually interesting, ignore the "rule" and take the shot. If it doesn't, ignore the"rule" and don't take the shot.
I assume that the boy is someone near and dear to you. A shot like this is the sort of thing that you'llvalue for a lifetime. If you can continue to avoid the shots of family membersstaring into the lens and saying, "cheese," you'll become the photographer of record for your clan.
ETA: Ah, you kept going. OK. On the fourth: it seems rather claustrophobic to me. The line of family up the center seems to make the rest of the picture superfluous. It's a lovely setting, and could have made an interesting portrait, but not by placing everyone in a vertical line up the middle. As to the fifth, I cannot imagine why you would want to use black-and-white on a garden shot. For the last, the baby is cute, but you haven't added any "value" in your composition. The fact that everyone loves a baby makes your job as a photographer harder, not easier. You want to (UNOBTRUSIVELY) add interest to an intrinsically interesting subject. In this shot, you have failed to even atempt that as far as I can see. There was a shot that someone posted a little while ago of "grandad" holding a baby. The shot was over grampa's shoulder, and showed the baby looking up with thosecaptivating baby eyes. It worked wonderfully -- the baby was clearly the star, but the photographer had done the job of adding value to the shot without making his "artsiness" the center of attention. Perhaps, if that photog reads this, he could post that shot as an object lesson in compositionfor these kinds of shots.
ETA: Readingover my remarks, they seem harsh. That was not my intention, and I hope that you do not take them as such. I think you show promise as a photographer. For example, your selection of the garden as a setting for the portraits shows thought and appreciationforsuch things. My desire was to emphasize the points to ponder, and in my clumsiness, I guess I failed to adequately communicate the positive. If I have offended, I apologize.