As I stated, "barring true emergencies." This is repetitive behavior on the part of this T. There is no indication in the OP's account that the T is even aware of doing anything differently to prevent such occurrences from repeating.


In my experience, colleagues are not "taking leave" or in any way expected to take responsibility for absenting themselves; there is simply the expectation that childless employees will "take up the slack" with the assumption that they have no excuse not to. This has also extended to overtime functions, planned retreats, etc. In my workplaces, having kids is, in fact, a "get out of jail free" card whenever it is inconvenient to do otherwise. I would consider "taking leave" to be an appropriate action for attending to home responsibilities and not a penalty: it is simply accepting responsibility. Future Univ teachers would thank you for not being a helicopter parent--but it is a very widespread phenomenon that has caused extensive issues at Universities in the US.


For a T, the stakes are a bit higher because it is usually not possible for there to be any substitute provided. For this reason, I think the burden is on Ts to be more diligent in how they organize their non-work lives, and it appears that this T doesn't do so. What sort of apology is offered and whether or not the OP chooses to accept it is only one part of the problem. Underlying the situation is the repetitive nature of the short/no notice absences. Simply saying "life happens" wouldn't pass muster as an excuse from a client to most Ts for cancelling at the last minute, so why should it be allowable behavior from a T?