For this creative choice to work, the reasons for Sisko's conduct had to be rock solid, and they weren't.
Can you please not make 'blanket statements' like this? It's my single biggest pet peeve, and really undermines the credibility of anyone who does it.
It was not a "blanket statement," but a concise summation of my opinion on a specific subject. I make basically two points that one might disagree with separately, or both at once.
1) For Sisko to abandon his family, he would need to have strong reasons to do so, and those reasons would have to stand up to scrutiny, i.e. be "rock solid."
2) Sisko's actions in RBoE were not adequately justified by the narrative.
I think it's clear, both from RBoE itself, and from DRGIII's comments on the subject prior to quitting the forums, that there were supposed to be rock solid reasons for Sisko's actions in the story.
However, I would argue that this is not the case, which is why a discussion of the issue quickly leads to the idea that Sisko is acting irrationally due to extreme depression (meaning that his actions are not justified, he only thinks they are because he is suffering from mental illness), or to the possibility that it would all make sense if we knew more about Sisko's experiences between The Soul Key and RBoE.
On a separate but related point,
DarKush is correct that the choice between "happily ever after" and the story in RBoE is a false dichotomy and blatant straw man argument.
Thirdly, simply because Sisko thinks he is doing the right thing, or has been able to convince himself that this is so according to the narrative, does not exonerate him. Neglectful fathers commonly convince themselves that their actions are justified, no matter how irrational and/or unjustifiable they might actually be. In RBoE, Sisko acts like a man who is trying to come up with an excuse to ditch his family on Bajor. Naturally he finds one.
Many details of the narrative tend to support this reading. For example, Sisko abandons Kasidy and his four year old daughter without even explaining the reasons for his choice to them (he only does so from long distance much later). If he is really doing this with their best interests in mind, why can't he stand up in front of them and say so? Refusing to do so smacks of cowardice and tends to undermine the notion that Sisko's reasons actually justify his actions.
Sisko makes no arrangements to remain a part of his daughter's life following his separation and divorce from Kasidy, even though the prophecy supposedly motivating his actions makes no stipulation at all regarding his daughter. If Sisko is really trying to do what's best for his family, why does he act like getting a divorce somehow means that he can no longer be a father to Rebecca?
Sisko files for divorce from long distance, without ever discussing the matter with his wife, then acts relieved and asks his first officer if he wants to go have a drink. Here I have to wonder if the author was deliberately drawing the parallel between Sisko's actions and those of a typical deadbeat dad. The link to the stereotype is too strong to ignore: man divorces wife and abandons young child to go hang with the fellas. In short, the psychology on display chimes, in many respects, with that of a man who is desperate to escape his responsibilities as husband and father, knows what he is doing is wrong on some level, but manages to convince himself to do it anyway, because deep down, that's what he wants.
The psychology on display is not convincingly that of a man who desperately wants to remain with his family, but is tragically forced to abandon them in order to save them.