This is a highly biased response from a therapist who has worked with individuals, families, and network systems in crisis. Vogel and Mansfield raise questions which cast some doubts about the assumptions, efficacy, and wiseness of some of the procedures and approaches in family therapy, as well as some of the beliefs that family therapists hold. From that point of view, I for one welcome the commentary. This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that I can endorse or even agree with some of the suggested implications of the commentary. Should family therapists always insist on the presence of the entire family prior to engaging themselves and the family members in therapy? This is exactly what Napier and Whitaker did with the Brice family as itwas described in the book The Family Crucible, and Vogel and Mansfield question this stance. It seems to me that this position, this stance of either that one brings the entire family or therapy cannot begin works quite well for Whitaker and Napier. [t might not be the only option other family therapists wish to take. The answer to the question, to my way of thinking, depends to a large extent on who is the therapist and what is the problem to be dealt with. For those family therapists who are inclined to insist on the attendance of the entire family from the first session onward, flexibility should be an important commodity. For while insisting that full family attendance can be an extremely important first step in the power play between therapist and family members, the need for allowing other family members to gradually become engaged in the process of family healing should not be underestimated. My own choice is-flexibility rather than rigidity when it comes to family attendance. Although, at times of crisis, I may be overbearingly insistent on the absolute attendance of family members, particularly during larger family network meetings, I