Forgive me for cross-posting this little comment, but I'm not sure which of these similar threads contained my error! So, by way of apology to CO 1E:

CO 1E, in re-reading my posts, I think I was not as totally forthcoming as I could be about one small issue, and you sort of addressed it in the other thread in the past several minutes.

There, you said something like (and I'm not quoting) perhaps parents could re-evaluate how much travel little children and infants really NEED to be doing. I think you are right.

In one of my posts, I told of a few reasons why even our infants have had to do the IAH - CDG slog several times, even in their first year of life. I should *not* have given you the impression that it was always a matter of life-and-death, or serious illness because, upon reflection, that's just not honest of me.

More specifically, I tend to characterize my 'desire' to have my family all together, and my sons' inherent 'need' to be with both parents as a coherent whole, as a true NEED, not a WANT. So -- I guess that's a thorny issue. Some would tell me, "If your famile NEEDS to be together all the time, then stop traveling." Well -- that's a nice suggestion, but it's not possible. Even if I quite my job and took a domestic litigation position, I would miss our family on one side or the other, and my children would, too.

So, the compromise we hit years ago before having children is: there will be lots of travel. And when the kids are truly infants (up to about 12 months), let's avoid it whenever possible. And we do! But sometimes, even when no one has died, or no one needs a blood transfusion, or Granny is not on her deathbed, I just want to put all four of my kids to bed everynight -- read their stories, do their bath and prayers, have dinner with them, and rock the youngest to sleep.

As silly as that sounds, I do tend to characterize it as a "need," and I should not have dismissed your point so quickly. Your definition of a "need" is actually more accurate than mine -- because mine is all clouded with "son-blindness" as I call it (topic for another post!).

I apologize for that. I think you have the better point to make.

LF