The Divorce Papers: A Novel
Page 32
Ms. Crane described Ms. Meiklejohn as a “semi-active parent.” She explained. “There are several parents, mothers really, who are hyperactive. It’s almost as if they see it as a job. Ms. Meiklejohn is not in that group. She comes to sing most Friday afternoons, she attends all of Jane’s class performances and athletic events, but she doesn’t hang around the school. She did go on the class trip to the Southport Aquarium this past fall, but confided afterward that she wasn’t cut out for trips that involved bus rides with 80 children, and in the future would instead bring the cupcakes for the Sports Day.” Ms. Crane laughed. “I like Ms. Meiklejohn. She can be very funny, and she always treats the teachers with respect. There are some parents who think of us as their employees. I saw her once intercede on behalf of a teacher, Liz Sugarman, Jane’s 3rd-grade teacher, though intercede is not exactly the right word. It was just about two years ago. A child in Jane’s class had been sent to the headmistress’s office for swearing at Liz. The parents were called in and the father made a scene. He started yelling, in the hallway, at Liz for making a fuss about nothing. Ms. Meiklejohn, who was fetching Jane, saw what was happening. She went up to the father and said, ‘Excuse me, but you’re a fucking asshole.’ The father swung around and yelled at her, ‘Who the hell are you, and where do you get off calling me a name like that?’ Ms. Meiklejohn said, ‘Well, that’s what my daughter told me your son said to Ms. Sugarman, though he didn’t say “Excuse me.” I thought it was rude, but I wanted to test it on someone. I see it is rude, and upsetting.’ The father turned bright red. His wife started to cry, a good move, I thought.” Ms. Crane had never met Dr. Durkheim, though she had seen him at Sports Day in October.
Ms. Wolfe said she’d like to tell a story about Ms. Meiklejohn as a parent. “It’s not a story about seeing her interact with Jane,” she said. “Rather, it’s a story that told me how thoughtful she was as a mother.” Two years ago, she had sounded Ms. Meiklejohn out about joining the school’s Board of Trustees; Ms. Meiklejohn turned her down, saying she would not serve while Jane was still a student there. “ ‘It’s been my experience,’ Ms. Meiklejohn explained, ‘that trustees who are parents of current students almost invariably take their child’s point of view when they find themselves in situations where their allegiances are divided. Suppose you caught Jane smoking in the bathroom, or setting fire to the bathroom,’ she said. ‘Would you kick her out? I think it’s a serious conflict of interest. I have to be on Jane’s side. Ask me again when Jane has finished up.’ ” Ms. Wolfe said that no parent, to her knowledge, had ever before acknowledged a conflict; nor had she faced up to it. She said that at a subsequent retreat of the board, she arranged for an outside facilitator to address the question of parent-trustees and their role in situations that might compromise their fiduciary responsibilities. “Half my board are current parents. But that’s down from 75%, and that’s because of Mia Meiklejohn.”
Ms. Wolfe had spoken with Dr. Durkheim only once, at the parent interview when Jane was applying to kindergarten; he was interested in the science curriculum. Ms. Wolfe asked if I wanted her opinion on custody. I asked her what it was. “There’s no question but that Jane should live with her mother. Victoria would say the same thing. In fact, all of Jane’s teachers would. He simply isn’t around. More than that, he isn’t available.”
CONCLUSION
The question I have specifically been asked to address is Jane’s custody in the event her mother dies in the next few years. For Jane this is not a hypothetical question but a real fear. Ms. Meiklejohn is 42. Both her mother and grandmother died at 46 of breast cancer. Ms. Meiklejohn has been the primary caretaker since Jane’s birth, and Jane’s parents have agreed that under their separation agreement, Jane will live with her mother. Dr. Durkheim will have generous visiting and overnight rights. He does not think it necessary to spell out the terms of his rights (e.g., alternate weekends, Jewish holidays), but trusts he and his wife will be able to work it out. Ms. Meiklejohn concurs. Since they do not disagree on this point and since Jane is reaching an age where her wishes and preferences will count as much as if not more than theirs, I do not think it necessary or useful to specify terms but recommend leaving them open.
On the subject of custody in the event Ms. Meiklejohn dies before Jane is 18, I support Jane’s position and recommend that joint custody be granted her father and grandfather and that she live with her grandfather on the same terms as she lived with her mother. There is no question that Dr. Durkheim loves his daughter and is legally fit to be her custodian and caretaker, but he has made no effort to take on any of the caretaking responsibilities that a custodial parent regularly assumes; neither has he given any indication, in sharp contrast to his father-in-law, Bruce Meiklejohn, that he could easily, selflessly take on those responsibilities in the event Jane’s mother died. It is my sense that he knows he is not the right person to take on the task of the caretaking parent but feels chagrined by this failing and Jane’s perception of it and, in consequence, has assumed a self-protective mask of stony recalcitrance. Affronted by a process of evaluation that showed him to disadvantage, Dr. Durkheim refused to argue on his own behalf or to step aside in favor of his father-in-law, preferring to appear arrogant rather than to admit deficiency. It is a self-protective act but also one protective of Jane. He is caught in a dilemma. If he fights for custody, he knows, as she knows, that he is not acting in her best interests. At the same time, if he doesn’t fight for custody, he fears, I believe, that she may feel abandoned by him.
FINDINGS
I make this recommendation based on the following findings: (1) that Jane’s best interests now are served by a custody agreement that has her living with her grandfather in the event of her mother’s death; (2) that Dr. Durkheim is not unfit to act as Jane’s primary caretaker and custodian but that, owing to the demands of his job, he could not take on that role in the event of his wife’s death and maintain the same level of commitment to his work; (3) that Dr. Durkheim has acknowledged his limited role in Jane’s care and upbringing to date and cannot foresee curtailing professional commitments and responsibilities in a way that would allow him to take a more active and involved role now or in the future; (4) that Mr. Meiklejohn has asserted his willingness to act as Jane’s caretaker and has undertaken to work closely with Dr. Durkheim to make the arrangement work; (5) that Jane has made clear not only her preferences but also her intentions and that her grandfather would likely sue for custody if Jane were made to live with Dr. Durkheim against her wishes; (6) that both of Jane’s parents understood prior to consulting me that a recommendation in favor of Bruce Meiklejohn was a possible outcome of this evaluation; and (7) that changed circumstances might overtake this arrangement and that its purpose is to secure Jane’s peace of mind now and in the near future.
Narragansett Statutes
Title 33 of the Narragansett Code, Sections 801ff.
Dissolution of Marriage, Annulment, and Legal Separation
Sec. 807. Orders regarding custody and support of minor children.
In any controversy before the Narragansett Family Court as to the custody or care of minor children, the court may at any time make or modify any order regarding the education and support of the children and of care, custody, and visitation. The court may assign the custody of any child to the parents jointly, to either parent, or to a third party, according to its best judgment upon the facts of the case. The court may also make any order granting the right of visitation of any child to a third party, including stepparents, grandparents, and other family members.
Sec. 813. Presumption regarding best interest of child to be in custody of parent.
In any dispute as to the custody of a minor child involving a parent and a nonparent, there shall be a presumption that it is in the best interest of the child to be in the custody of the parent, which presumption may be rebutted by showing that it would be detrimental to the child’s best interest to permit the parent to have custody.
MARIA
DURKHEIM
404 ST. CLOUD STREET
NEW SALEM, NA 06556
September 14
Dear Sophie,
A quick note to keep you up to date on the domestic front at the Meiklejohn-Durkheims. I saw my old friend Jacques Valery last week in Philadelphia, when I was visiting Cordelia. We went for a long walk and caught up with each other. He followed up with a note to the house, which I’ve attached. It was very good for my morale, being with him. I recommend a Frenchman, if not as the entrée, then the cheese course.
I’m writing because I think Daniel may have opened the letter. I’m not sure. The flap was all bunched up, as though it had been resealed. He didn’t say anything. He may simply think I’ve resumed an old relationship. He knew about Jacques, Part 1, and he might not have realized that Jacques was writing about Part 2. Then again, he may not give a tinker’s damn; he may be relieved that I’m moving on. He seems less angry at me since we got Dr. Fischer’s report. I don’t want to feel any sympathy for him, and yet when he’s not being a perfect swine, I find my throat catching. Enough of this twaddle. Oh, where did my stiff upper lip go?
All the best,
Mia
THE PHILADELPHIA CHRONICLE
190 HIGH STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106
(215)333-5555
10 September
Chère Mia,
I was so happy to see you again. I’m so glad you called. It is an awful experience getting divorced, though I’ve heard friends say the second one, c’est du gateau. You’re doing very well. And you’re looking very well, but thinner. Don’t get too thin. Men—real men, French men—like something to hold on to.
I was not surprised by the news, but surprised you were. I saw it coming, like a train in the night. Let lawyers do the fighting for you. That is my only advice.
Will I get to see you again? Don’t you think we should go to Gabriella’s, for old time’s sake? The maître d’ always asks after you. “What happened to la bella bionda?” he asks. I give him my best Gallic shrug, and he nods sagely, the discreet repository of old love affairs.
Another inducement: tickets for the 76ers. Or the Barnes Collection.
Avec amour, comme toujours.
Jacques
SANGER & BOOTH
300 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-6767
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
September 17, 1999
Anne Sophie Diehl
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555
Dear Sophie,
This letter serves as notice of new representation. I am writing on behalf of our client, Dr. Daniel Durkheim, who has retained Sanger & Booth, as of September 20, to represent him in his separation negotiations and dissolution proceedings with his wife, Maria Meiklejohn. Kahn & Boyle will no longer be representing him.
We will contact you again shortly with a new offer from Dr. Durkheim. He believes that a prompt resolution of all issues is in everyone’s best interest, and he has instructed us to put forward an offer that promotes agreement.
Yours,
Mary Booth
Attorney at Law
Happy Birthday
* * *
From: Maggie Pfeiffer
To: Sophie Diehl
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 8:07:02
Subject: Happy Birthday 9/21/99 8:07 AM
Happy Birthday, darling Sophie. I know I’ll see you tonight, but I wanted you to start the day with my best, best wishes on your 30th birthday.
Don’t bring anything, just your sweet self.
All my love,
Maggie
P.S. Time to start cramming for the judging exams now that you’re 30. No more “dicking around,” as your divorce client likes to say.
* * *
Happy Birthday
* * *
From: Harry Mortensen
To: Sophie Diehl
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:54:29
Subject: Happy Birthday 9/21/99 11:54 AM
I remembered this morning that today was your birthday. You had described yourself as an equinocturnal girl. Happy Birthday, Sweet Sophie.
I want to apologize for the way things wound up, for the way I behaved. I was—still am—really crazy about you, but with Tessa acting out, I couldn’t—and still can’t—have any kind of real relationship. She hasn’t gone away. She’s ill, seriously ill. I’m sure that’s why Scammer left. I’ve hired a lawyer, but it’s been very hard going. She doesn’t have, as they say, a known fixed address. I don’t know where or how she’s living. She calls regularly, sometimes 15 or 16 times a night, to harangue me. I turn the ringer off. I turn the phone off. She leaves rambling messages. Her phone number changes all the time, and when I call back, no one answers. I don’t know how or when I’ll find myself clear of her.
I say this only by way of explanation. It was the wrong time for us. You were, are wonderful. The time we were together, during the rehearsal and run of The Real Thing, was for me the happiest in years. I wanted to tell you that.
Harry
P.S. I’m sorry I told Tessa about you. I’m sorry she made a scene in your office. But I couldn’t help it.
It just came out, like a breath.
My Birthday
* * *
From: Sophie Diehl
To: Maggie Pfeiffer
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:07:25
Subject: My Birthday 9/21/99 11:07 PM
Dear Maggie,
You and Matt were great. Not the birthday party I expected. I wish, or almost wish, Harry hadn’t written to me. I’m okay. I’ll be okay. For him, it’s awful. You said you weren’t surprised. I know you kept telling me not to give up on him. But it wouldn’t have worked out; he says that, he knows that.
Thanks for everything. The food was delicious. How many bottles of wine did we drink? I saw at least three dead bottles on the table. Almost enough to drown one’s sorrows.
Love,
Sophie
TRAYNOR, HAND, WYZANSKI
222 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-5678
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
September 23, 1999
Maria Mather Meiklejohn
404 St. Cloud Street
New Salem, NA 06556
Dear Mia,
Unexpected good news. Daniel has gotten himself new lawyers, Sanger & Booth, a small, good firm, two women partners, two women associates. They specialize in family law and often do cases for the state, representing children in termination of parental rights proceedings. I know the principals, Sarah (Sadie) Sanger and Mary (Mamie) Booth. They’re first-rate in every respect: professional, competent, ethical, honorable. Dr. Fischer’s report may be responsible for this. Or Kahn’s reprimand. Or your 10-point letter? Or all of the above. I think we’ll be able to make a deal. Hold steady.
I am attaching their letter giving notice of new representation. Isn’t there a Star Trek movie, The End of Kahn?
Yours,
Anne Sophie Diehl
cc: David Greaves
SUSANNA GIOVANNITTI
Formerly of Middleton, Murray
&
CAROLINE LEWISOHN
Formerly of Seward, Matland & Janney
Have Become Members
of
Farrow Allerton
280 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555
OCTOBER 1, 1999
SANGER & BOOTH
300 CHURCH STREET
NEW SALEM, NARRAGANSETT 06555
(393) 876-6767
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
October 1, 1999
Anne Sophie Diehl
Traynor, Hand, Wyzanski
222 Church Street
New Salem, Narragansett 06555
Dear Sophie,
I am sending you Dr. Daniel Dur
kheim’s new offer. I have appropriated your form to allow clear and easy comparisons.
The offer is based on Dr. Durkheim’s current salary of $370,000. As you will see, he has accepted most of the terms your client, Maria Meiklejohn, offered, including rehabilitation alimony in the form of law school tuition. After taxes (estimated at $100,000/year), this offer allocates $150,000, 55% of his net income, in a combination of alimony and child support, to Ms. Meiklejohn and Jane. In light of these substantial payments, the offer does not include any escalator clauses or cost-of-living adjustments.
In distributing retirement funds, investments, and property, this offer recognizes, as is only fair, Ms. Meiklejohn’s inheritance from her mother, not the house, but the trust, which will vest when she’s 50. At the same time, the rehabilitation alimony recognizes that the trust will not vest until she’s 50. Dr. Durkheim will retain his retirement funds and in addition $206,000 in more liquid assets. Ms. Meiklejohn will receive 6/7th of the stock investment. Dr. Durkheim will retain the house for seven years, in line with the alimony and child support arrangement. At the end of seven years, he will pay Ms. Meiklejohn $120,000, one-half of the current net equity as calculated in your offer.