Two years ago, I moved my kids 1800 miles to begin a new life. A year later, not by choice, we had to move back. After seeing two such transitions in just about a year's time, I know first-hand how difficult it can be for kids to relocate.  Everything changes: their room, the house, the neighborhood, their friends, their school. Everything.

But when faced with the alternative of the relatively new phenomenon of the extreme commute, occurring more and more lately with a looming recession and job changes/downsizing and causing one parent often to find work in a location far away, which is better?

The experts say that most often (but depending on various circumstances), the move is better.

(Except when you're dealing with teenagers, though, who tend to need ties to peers and school in order to do whatever it is that teenagers do.)

Why is the move better? Small children are disoriented by sudden appearances and disappearences of a parent. Which would explain why my kids bonded more with me than they did with their father, an airline pilot who was constantly away for days at a time in a seemingly unpredictable schedule. Hmm.

Of course, serial moves are also disturbing for kids, and can lead to alcoholism and teen pregnancy. Yipes! But you weren't considering moving every six months, were you?

I'd love to hear about your experiences if you are one of those who chose the extreme commute route, which by all appearances requires a HUGE commitment for both parents and great communication for everyone. 

Photo: farleybrothersmovingcompany