Leonard your very defensive about it. Kristina is entitled to her opinion as you are yours. She is not condemning you just saying that she wouldn't even have given her child the choice..... by that she would have come home with him, as would I .
Well, sorry if I've come over as defensive - I thought I was just explaining the facts. And I didn't come on here to get into a discussion about our situation - I was just giving an example to the OP that it is perfectly fine for a 16-year-old to cope for a couple of weeks because our son did it for longer, no problem.
But your statement intrigues me. You would have come home with him, to what? No job? There are only two schools near our house - the boarding school he used to attend (and where I worked), and the school he eventually attended for sixth-form. Neither of them had vacancies - very low staff turnover. So you think it would be better to live together as a family with neither parent working than to live apart and have an income to pay the mortgage, provide food and clothing for our son...
Sometimes, in the real world, one has to compromise.
But the thing that I find really frustrating is the bit where you say "she wouldn't even have given her child the choice".
How can you not give a 16-year-old the choice? This was my point to the OP. She cannot make her daughter go on holiday with her. A 16-year-old is entitled to make their own choices. In our case we actually understood and accepted that.
Parents giving up their jobs, possibly their careers when their child is perfectly capable of managing by themselves is just silly. I only know one family that moved with their 16 year old who chose a school away from home and they were an immigrant family so they weren't used to concept that 16 year olds can and do manage their schooling and living by themselves.
Thank you, Natsku, for understanding what I'm talking about.