“I understand that there are two (or more) sides to the story. This house is tearing his family apart. And to protect.. what, exactly ? If the place is so expensive, then some other sort of housing should be found. With the whole family.
But all I see being salvaged here is his credit rating. He’s put it above a whole and stable family unit. Giving his kids a father.”
I have a little different perspective, being married to a pilot and having moved often. The children have a home, friends and community ties. Their father will be able to go back and visit. Once the home is given up, it’s gone, along with the children’s sense of security- their home, friends, school, community. The job situation is potentially temporary. Losing a family home is permanent. This is no different from Filippinos, Mexicans, etc. sending money home to their families. I don’t think anyone would dispute keeping a family together is good, but in this case, I think it would be much harder on the family to be up rooted to another state and potentially be in a worse financial situation. Moving has been harder on my daughter than her father being gone. Her father comes back to visit. Once she’s moved, a huge chunk of her life is lost.
In my upbringing, my family moved around (Financial opportunities = Getting evicted because rent couldn’t be paid). Of course my parents were upset about moving me and my sister, from our friends. But in the long run, I made far more friends, more quality friends, and have a lot less regret having adjusted so often during my childhood. I suppose I see an angle of this that few others see.