>>This is also an easier case, since there is only one child table in this case, so I perform this on child table only, leaving one of parent records... how do we call it? Sterile?
>
>I hadn't thought of doing it this way, and if I have to, this will do the job, but if you look at my response to Myron, I think you will see an approach that allows more child tables to be added at a later date, and they will still get updated properly without any additional coding. I just haven't tested it yet.

My case was easier because I had only one child table (the behavior is by design - anytime I had more child tables, life began to complicate). Actually, having more child tables would require having them registered somewhere, and running code (like mine or some other) for each one of them.