Because my original response that this conversation in a part of was to the comment:

> I cannot imagine the kind of person who has kids knowing there were good odds they'd have to abandon them for much of their childhood.

I think that's highly unimaginative and can reduces someone to caricature.

> But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children?

First: Justify to whom? Who sets the criteria for what is a good enough justification? Your language on this rankles a bit. Especially because...

Second: Holmes children have a father of means, they have much higher odds of being well cared and achieving good life outcomes than most American children. And they'll have an opportunity for at least some relationship with their mother. You act like having a mother in jail is some sort of damnable curse that has been placed on this children.