Dear Nick and Nora Pinky and Spike:
You’ve both told me about the “nice lunch” you had together that concluded with a shouting match on the way back to your cars. You’re baffled and worried about why you’re still so angry with each other.
I think I know, and it’s a good sign. Essentially, each of you stimulates anger in the other, which then becomes a disproportionate response. The anger isn’t about what’s been done to you. Your anger is about you, and now is the time to start coming to terms with it.
The “bargaining stage” of the grief process has two phases; you are in Phase One. You want to do business with each other, yet you go around in circles, have stupid arguments and experience “excessive” anger.
While this is what your surface emotions should look like, below the surface you are working on three tasks that need to be completed before you can go on to Phase Two. You must learn: (1) to communicate with each other in a non-intimate way, (2) to do business with each other in a non-intimate way, and (3) to come closer to an understanding of the best mutual solution for your financial settlement.
You’ve been together forever, and you can say something with the raise of an eyebrow that would take someone else a thousand words to duplicate. That’s one form of intimate communication; another form is bickering.
During Phase One, divorcing couples communicate in their old intimate style, and it creates expectations — largely unconscious — that can never be met. Unmet expectations lead to disappointment and anger, and those feelings are quickly reciprocated by the other party.
I suspect you had a “nice” lunch because you were communicating with each other in your old “intimate” style. Perhaps the intimate style made the lunch nice or the nice lunch stimulated the intimate style. In either event, you both liked it.
But on the way to the parking lot, Spike said something to Pinky, making it clear she didn’t care what he was going to do with the rest of his day. If you were still together Spike would be interested, but you aren’t and she isn’t. Of course, it might have been something Pinky said to Spike that got things going.
It hurt Pinky’s feelings, and he knows how to retaliate: “Take this.” It’s like a child who can’t communicate his unhappiness by “using his words,” so he makes everyone around him just as miserable, so they will “understand.”
Most couples realize the danger of intimate communication and don’t like the pain it’s causing them. They learn by trial and error what kind of communication works and what causes grief. Think of that lunch as a learning experience.
. . .
The punchline for the story about my barrister friends is what happened after I asked Jonathan if he could explain what “fair play” meant. He said, “Yes,” and Lynn said, “You certainly cannot ...”
To get the full benefit of the story, you need to know some more about the Gaunts. Both are brilliant, but if you talk to Jonathan for a half-hour you realize he is somehow different from all the other smart people you know. It’s the depth of his intelligence that’s the mark of his English classical education.
Lynn is a Londoner born and raised; her degree is from London University. Lynn’s intelligence is lightening fast but different because of the type of education given to the quintessential English gentlemen who have been running the country for the past 400 years. Jonathan has been part of this in-crowd his entire life.
Jonathan’s parents were physicians. He was sent to a residential “prep school” when he was 7. He was prepared for admission to what the English refer to as “School” (it’s always with a capital S).
This preparation required mastery of both Ancient Greek and Latin by age 12. His “School” was Radley College. I had never heard of it, but Google it and you discover that Radley is always mentioned as one of the big four, along with Eton, Harrow and Winchester.
After Radley, Jonathan entered Oxford as one of very few undergraduate scholars. If you visit, you’ll notice that a few of the students wear academic gowns that go to the knee. All of the other students wear gowns that stop at the waist. He read Mods and Greats, which is described as the archetypal liberal education in that they spend at least half their time reading Greek and Roman classics.
Most recently he became Jonathan Gaunt, Q.C. This means he is designated as Queen’s Counsel1, a distinction enjoyed by fewer than 10 percent of practicing barristers. I’ll come back to him.
. . .
Now, what do you think is the “fair” way to decide this case?
On the day after Art and Barbara married, they bought a house for $100,000. They used $20,000 Art had saved before marriage for their down payment. Their mortgage was $80,000. The ttle was taken jointly as Art and Barbara, husband and wife.
Twenty years later they divorce and the house is sold. After they paid the remaining $10,000 on the mortgage, taxes and all the other fees, they have exactly $1 million. How do they divide it?
Make a quick note of your answer now, and I’ll tell you what lawmakers have decided is “fair” in the next letter.
. . .
A final word: The little dust-up you had after lunch is actually a good sign. You’re making progress.
Your friend,
Bucky
— Brian H. Burke is a certified family law specialist practicing family law and mediation in Santa Barbara. A researcher and educator in the field of divorce and family conflicts, he is also the creator of the Legal Road Map™. Click here for more information, call 805.965.2888 or e-mail .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
