The Divorce Papers: A Novel (42 page)

I asked Mr. Meiklejohn about his wife, Cindy. Would she want Jane living with them? Would it be agreeable to her? Would she find a child at this point in her life, living in her house, a nuisance? “Cindy has always been pleasant to Jane, but she has no children of her own, never wanted them, and she thinks of them generally as Martians. But she has never been and never would be unkind to Jane; that’s not in her nature. And Jane’s a very attractive and agreeable child, and Cindy likes her. But as I would make it easy for Durkheim to have Jane living in my house, I’d make it easy for Cindy too. She would not be asked to do any of the tending, no carpooling, no Saturdays at the races, no homework duty. I’d hire a wonderful nanny, wonderful tutors if needed. And I’m pretty good at homework, and I’d be the one to go to her races, meet with her teachers, set her curfew, teach her to drive stick. I’m in.” He went on. “Cindy and I now have been married almost 20 years. She understands me. She’s a good wife. She’d go along.”

I asked how he’d feel in his later years, giving up so much of his time to a young child, if it came to that. “After my son, James, died, I more or less shut down. Then Cordelia was born so seriously afflicted. Then Maria, Mia’s mother, got cancer. Dead two years later. It was a terrible decade. I remarried very soon after. I needed someone alive and healthy and not needy. Mia got the short end of the stick. I know that, but I was too sore myself to take care of her. Jane gives me a second shot. She’s very like Mia too, or the way Mia was before James died. So direct, so slyly humorous, so thoughtful and sensitive, yet resilient. I see James in her too. She is a wonderful athlete, a great runner. And she’s smart as a whip, smarter than all of us. I love that girl with all my heart.” He stopped for a second, then continued. “Look, I don’t think Mia’s going to die before Jane grows up. This is all highly speculative. We’re doing this to make sure Jane feels safe now. But if that terrible event happened, I would be there. And in some way, I could make amends to Mia, doing for her daughter what I couldn’t do, what I didn’t do for her.”

I asked him about his age and his health. He laughed. “I wondered if you’d go there, but then I said to myself, oh, yes, she’ll ask. She’s a pro. I am 68. I am in excellent health, and I will let you speak to my physician if you want. I exercise regularly, I don’t take any medicines, other than the odd Advil for my stiff right knee. My memory is pretty good. I forget names now and then without even intending to. That’s about it. My mother lived to 96, my father to 90. Both kept their health and wits. I am the youngest of six children, all still living. My oldest sibling, Jonathan, is 87 and a senior judge on the 13th Circuit. My
next oldest sibling, Rebecca, is 82. She plays competitive bridge. We’re all cut from the same cloth, strong as horses, stubborn as mules. And I think Mia is cut from that cloth too. She’s really all Meiklejohn, very little Mather, except of course for the bookishness.”

I asked him how he’d work out the financial arrangements with Dr. Durkheim. “There’s nothing you won’t ask, is there? Good for you. I am a rich man. I’m not Bill Gates or Warren Buffett rich, but I’ve got more than any person needs. I can easily support Jane and would, but I would work it out with her father. I had offered years ago to pay for her schooling, college, graduate school, psychoanalysis, and I stand ready to do that wherever she lives. In the event of my death, I’ve made arrangements for Cordelia’s permanent support, given a life interest in one-half of my estate to my wife, Cindy, and set up a foundation with $25 million outright, and after Cindy’s death, that half of my estate. The rest goes to Mia and Jane. Jane will be an heiress. Mia too. I’ve structured it so that Jane will have a regular income until she’s 35. After that, it’s all hers. Mia inherits immediately, and she can dispose of her estate as she wishes; I haven’t made her give it over to Jane. I did all this recently. I think it’s my eighth will in six years. It was hard for me, to give up that power, but I did it. Cindy told me I had to. She said I was becoming unattractively controlling.” He laughed. “Did you ever read
Portrait of a Lady
?” I nodded. “Mia gave it to me. Wonderful book. Ralph ruined Isabel, giving her all that money. It was a cruel experiment. I’m susceptible to literature; I believe in it, especially when it supports my prejudices. I want Jane to have my money, but I don’t want her to be a victim of a fortune hunter. I know Durkheim didn’t marry Mia for her money—he left Helen Fincher for Mia, and the Finchers have more money than the sultan of Dubai—but real money is a huge magnet. I’ve made Jane and Mia trustees of the foundation so they’ll get to give away money, something I have trouble doing, and they can give away their own too. Do you need to know how much money I have?” I told him I did not.

My final question had to do with his response in the event his daughter died and Dr. Durkheim wanted Jane to stay with him. “It would depend on Jane. If she wanted to live with me, I would sue for custody. If not, not. This is not a pissing contest. This is not about me or Durkheim. This is about Jane.”

TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH PEABODY SCHOOL STAFF (June 29)

At the end of June, during the last week of classes at the Peabody School, I
spoke on the phone with the headmistress, Eliza Wolfe, and Jane’s 5th-grade teacher, Victoria Crane. Both had met Ms. Meiklejohn on several occasions; Ms. Wolfe had also met Dr. Durkheim during an initial interview, when Jane was applying to the kindergarten class at Peabody in 1993. Ms. Crane described Jane as an excellent student and good citizen. She is organized, disciplined, hardworking, and bright. She is popular with her classmates, both boys and girls, and an outstanding athlete. Before her parents decided to separate, Ms. Crane would have described Jane as outgoing and outspoken, but since her parents’ decision to split, she has receded. “She’s sad, not so sad that she can’t forget her grief,” Ms. Crane said, “but sad enough that we all can see it. She speaks less in class, argues less with the boys. She’s doing well in her classes, but she’s less a presence in the classroom. I could always count on her to say something interesting. She was eager to participate. She’s quieter, more remote. She’ll be all right. She’s intellectually gifted and self-confident. It’s just been a huge blow. We had a long talk about it one day. She had been on the brink of tears all morning. I took her to the cafeteria for a cup of cocoa. She kept saying to me, ‘I didn’t see it coming. Why didn’t I see it coming?’ As if she might have forestalled it by foreseeing it.”

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.