Taking up the slack at home so that the LW can spend a significant period of time visiting her mother is support. Expecting the husband and the children to give up their day to day existence to move a long distance is something altogether different. I doubt if LW's mother expects it either (as a mother, I certainly wouldn't).

You prefaced by saying that you are not married, so I guess that explains part of your letter. It's true that people only die once, and LW should most definitely make space in her life for her mother's death. But it's also true, for instance, that her child will only learn to walk once, will only have one first day of kindergarten, and before LW knows it, she will be teaching him or her to drive. I envision someone running all over the country to be with their siblings and parents in their hour of need, or as they are dying, while pushing that "lifetime" with their own husband and children out into the future, and missing the daily, worthwhile treasures that make up that lifetime.

Why is moving even a possibility? Is someone trying to pressure you to move or are trying somehow to go back and reconnect with your childhood or work out issues with your mother? Forget it. Your mom is going forwards into death and there's no point in you going backwards in life. Moreover, in the end, dying is solitary and it's hard for the living to see the inevitable disengagement of their loved ones. There is a strong possibility that you are going to need your own immediate family more than your mother will need you in the coming months.

When my father was dying (and it was fairly clear that he was dying) it never even occurred to me to move. Yes, I wish I had spent more time with him, but then, there were times when my mother asked me to hold off because so many other people were already visiting, and the visits were hard on him. So by all means, get together with your family members and make sure someone is available to visit most of the time, and create a schedule to make sure she is surrounded by family to the extent she wishes. Set up temporary living quarters if you really want to spend time there. But don't move just to be with your dying mother.

The first job of any fraternity is to make you feel inadequate and thus grateful for having been included. The legal profession is no exception. No doubt coming from a non-white collar background can have disadvantages in the professional world, especially when it comes to getting certain types of business, but do not fear -- your hard scrabble background gives you undreamt of advantages in such areas as, negotiation, taking initiative rather than waiting to be told what to do and, I am guessing, determining when it's time to move on. Another thing that Cary might not have noticed but that many others of us have: those children of privilege might have been born on third base, but they have no desire to work nearly as hard as their parents did.

Finally, if you want to work for a certain kind of upper echelon firm, you should know that there is a lot of upheaval in the world of recruiting, and it is in some ways truly an entry level employee's market. If your grades are less than stellar, you might have some difficulty, but that should evaporate once you have demonstrated your talent and commitment after six months or a year, whether as a contract attorney, in the government, or for some other organization. You don't have to do that -- you might not WANT to do that, and you should explore all the opportunities that are out there, (especially if you are not burdened by crushing debt) only some of which are routinely pushed by law school placement staff. The point is, don't sell yourself short or settle for something you dislike because you think you are not good enough to get something else. This is almost certainly not the case.

This thread reads a lot like debates I've had on the mortgage meltdown: one-half think it's attributable to a bunch of greedy jerks trying to get something for nothing and the other half thinks it's people who were fundamentally unlucky and taken advantage of by credit card companies, hospitals and insurers. IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE. I can read these things in isolation and agree with all of them -- they are all true at least some of the time. The fundamental problem with bankruptcy law and creditors and credit card companies is that they really don't care about the reason for your distress. Indeed, with some kinds of debt, like student loans, you might have much better reasons for not paying it back than someone has for avoiding credit card debt. Yet, the young mother with a boatload of trade school debt who now has to stay home with a sick child is treated much worse than the deadbeat who maxed out every credit card he has in order to buy five flat screen tvs and anything else he can think of. Bankruptcy is supposed to provide an equitable adjustment of one's debts in light of one's circumstances. But the trend over the last 20 years, at least, has been to be less and less equitable and more and more pro-creditor all the way around. So yes, the writer did basically create her own distress -- which is stupid, because among other things, it makes her much more vulnerable to foreseeable bad luck (downturn in freelance assignments). But there are some kinds of distress that are truly random and not expected that no amount of planning can compensate for. Our laws aren't very good at sorting it all out, and they have become less so with every round of recent bankruptcy reform.