[DanBC]

Your post made me angry. I just deleted the post I had written. Here's the replacement.

Not seeing your children unless you have scheduled time to do so is bizarre. Some people would suggest it's borderline mildly abusive.

Children must come before work. It's really fucking simple. This principle is enshrined in the internationally agreed (although I know the US never ratifies these things) human rights for the child. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Not seeing your children without scheduling time for them has nothing to do with "healthy" (it soumds pathological) nor "respectful boundaries".

The default must be "all my time is spent with my family. Here's the time I set aside for work, but if anything happens to my children I can shift that work to a different time".

[simoncion]

> Children must come before work. It's really fucking simple. This principle is enshrined in the internationally agreed...

I read through that Convention, but didn't see any language that backs up your claim. Perhaps I missed it. Can you tell me which part and which article establishes the principle that you claim it does?

[DanBC]

In the pre-amble

"Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,"

And Article 3, section 1:

"1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

[simoncion]

Article 3, section 1 has no bearing on the actions of the individual. Notice that the language that targets institutions and governments.

The preamble speaks only of the environment that a child should be placed in. If it is necessary that both parents work 120 hours per week to provide such an environment for their children, then that is behavior that is supported by that Convention.

[judk]

I don't think parent post was saying that you should skip visiting your kids in the ER.

Spending all your time with kids a very... American leisure class perspective.

And I found nothing in that UN doc to support your claims either.

[DanBC]

Article 3. Here's the child friendly language version which is more direct: http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/files/uncrcchilldfriendlylan...

Here's the UNICEF summary: http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_su...

Op says, more than once, that time with children must be scheduled and that you should avoid seeing them unless it is scheduled. I agree they're not going to avoid ER. What about if the child spontaneously asks for time? Op has said that time should be withheld - as part of "healthy" adjustment and "respectful boundaries".

(I'm not American. I don't understand that comment.)

[ak39]

I don't understand your anger.

The OP was asking what to do when these are a given:

1. You work hard and long hours and you enjoy it. 2. You also NEED to spend time with family who already perceive that you are not spending enough time with them.

What do you do?

My response was to this scenario and this scenario alone. How to "balance" that. Your response on the other hand assumes that that you can impose (or have the right to suggest) fundamental compromises on an individual's life-style.

[DanBC]

Where does OP say they enjoy the work?

[mynameishere]

Weird. I actually remember being a kid and distinctly remember not wanting to be around my parents very often.