Scientists have found a gene they say is linked to an increased risk of breakdown in relationships, according to an article in the Telegraph by Roger Highfield today.

The researchers found that men with one version of a gene - called the “334″ version, or allele, had low scores on a Patnership Bonding Test and were less likely to be married or reported having marital difficulties.

“Women married to men who carry one or two copies of (the gene) were, on average, less satisfied with their relationship than women married to men who didn’t carry it,” said Hasse Walum, one of the scientists.

The discovery, reports Highfield,  raises the highly speculative possibility that scientists could one day develop drugs to target the gene in an attempt to prevent marriages from falling apart.

And if that happens, divorce lawyers will need to find another line of work.

Tom Clancy ought to write a book about his divorce.  He would have plenty of material.  The litigation between him and Wanda King, formerly Wanda Clancy until the divorce in 1999,
continues.

In 1992, the Clancy’s formed the Jack Ryan Limited Partnership, to write, sell and publish books and engage in related activities.  The partnership entered into a joint venture in which Tom Clancy’s name was used on a series of books written by another author.  Wanda and Tom agreed to continue the partnership in their Marriage Property Agreement and Tom would be the managing partner.

After the fourteenth book, Clancy withdrew the permission to use of his name.  Wanda sued for breach of contract and asked the court to make her the general partner.  The Circuit Court for Calvert County, Maryland, agreed and also awarded her over $500,000 in attorney fees.  The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

But the Maryland Court of Appeals sent the case back for the Circuit Court.  The appeals judges told the court that it must determine whether or not Tom Clancy breached the Marital Property Agreement in order award attorney fees.  It must also decide whether Clancy acted in bad faith in canceling the use of his name to spite his ex wife for the divorce.  The Court quote a Seinfeld episode, in which Jerry tries to return a shirt because he didn’t like the sales clerk.

Bob: You can’t return an item based purely
on spite.
Jerry: Well, so fine then . . . then I don’t want it and then
that’s why I’m returning it.
Bob: Well you already said spite so . . . .
Jerry: But I changed my mind.
Bob: No, you said spite. Too late.

Read the case (PDF).

Taking a laptop on holiday can break up a family warns Professor of Psychology, Gary Cooper, of Lancaster University in the Daily Express.

“People seem to think a holiday is about having a short break and catching the sun while doing a bit of work. That’s dumb,” according to the Professor. “A holiday isn’t just for rest and recuperation but to commune again with your family, connect with your children. Obviously if the employee is stupid enough to take their laptop with them and tell their employer that they are available, then they are going to be exploited.”

I must confess that I have taken a laptop with me on every vacation with my family. Deb Shinder says she does too at wxpnews.com. She points out that laptops can be misused on a vacation just like a book, golf clubs or a fishing rod. But they are a tool than can allow you to get away from work and take a vacation in the first place. And they can benefit your family time by provoking interesting conversation, providing entertainment and helping you find places and things to do while on your vacation.

Do you take your laptop on vacation? Do you think your spouse ought to leave the laptop at home? Let us know what you think.

What do you say when someone asks you about your former spouse or marriage?  Is it an awkward moment?

Miss Conduct, who is Robin Abrahams, a writer with a PhD in psychology, answered this question from a reader today in the Sunday Boston Globe.

People use stories, Miss Conduct says, to make sense of the world.  If you don’t provide them with one, they will supply their own, and it might not be one of your liking.  So you have the chance to provide a story that you want them to repeat to others.

Miss Conduct suggests one like this:

“Who can ever explain why these things happen? We realized we wanted different things out of life [or a similarly elevated but basically accurate summary], and it just didn’t seem possible to go on as a couple. We’re still on good terms, though, and I’m doing OK.”

She says this story tells them there were causes for the divorce but even you don’t know them all, your ex is not a villain, and you are not devastated and don’t need a lot of emotional support.

What is your divorce story?

My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.
- Rodney Dangerfield

Fear is a prevalent emotion during a divorce.  And there are a lot of things to be afraid of, like:

• An uncertain future
• Financial hardships
• Loneliness
• Unhappiness

“I have many great fears of my pending divorce. I’m afraid of my kids looking at another man as a second dad. Though we have agreed on joint custody of our 4-year-old boy and unborn child, that still means they will be with her next husband the same amount of time I am. I’m afraid that I will never be as happy with anyone else as I have been with my wife. I know I will get jealous of her being with another man - being intimate with him, telling him she loves him. It tears me apart inside.” Andy’s Dad at Divorce360.com

Andy says his wife was his one true love.  But let me tell you one of the Secrets of the Universe.  True loves are like street cars.  There’s another one coming along every five minutes.

Here’s another Secret of the Universe.  You only meet your one true love after you have lost your one true love.  Just ask my clients who have remarried.

Andy’s Dad’s fears are reasonable, but given time, they will become less and less important to him.  His life will become complicated with new relationships.  Eventually his fears will fade, and his feelings will become peace, tranquility, serenity and happiness.

What are your divorce fears?  Feel free to leave them in the comments section.

By Jill H. Breslau

Historically, in Maryland, there was a time when the father was the preferred custodian for the children, since he had the duty to provide for their protection, education, and maintenance.

Later, there was a maternal preference, especially in the case of young children, called the Tender Years Doctrine. Now, the law requires that neither parent be given preference solely because of his or her sex.

The standard for determining custody is the Best Interest Standard; that is, what arrangement for access to both parents will be in the best interest of the child. There are many criteria for Best Interest, but the court has broad discretion to make decisions. Factors considered in custody disputes include the fitness of the parents, their character and reputation, what the parents want and what agreements they may have reached, the preference of a child who is old enough to form “a rational judgment,” the age, health, and sex of the child, and such other factors as whether there has been abandonment, abuse, or adultery (if detrimental to the child).

What does that mean, in practice? Statistics reflect that in the vast majority of divorces, mothers get primary custody—whether by agreement or by court order. Why? Because the law looks backward to determine the future. Whatever circumstances have existed before carry the most weight in a court’s determination about what ought to happen in the future. So if a mother has been the person who has taken the children to the doctor, if she knows their teachers and their clothing sizes and who their friends are, if she has made the babysitter arrangements and play dates and handled most of the day-to-day decision-making and discipline of the children, she will have a good chance of obtaining custody.

“I remember clearly those awful days during my divorce where I would literally feel sick to my stomach. It seemed like the pain would never go away. The divorce consumed my life at the time and wondered if I would ever feel good again.” – Christina Rowe

Anxiety is a common human emotion. People will find something to worry about even when times are good. When going through a divorce, you will find many things to worry about, and you will have good reason to worry. Even if I tell you not to worry, you will worry.

Depression is another fairly common experience in divorce. If you are going through a divorce and you feel uncertain, insecure, or depressed, then you have a normal problem. But if you are going through a divorce and you feel no uncertainty, insecurity, or depression, then you may have a bigger problem.

Divorce is crazy time. When going through a divorce:

Your ears don’t work.
Your eyes don’t work.
Your mouth doesn’t work.
Your head doesn’t work.

You may not hear or understand everything that is said, you don’t always say what you mean, you may not perceive things correctly, and you may exercise poor judgment.

So if you are feeling depressed right now, or anxious, or crazy, welcome to the club. You are not alone. In fact, you may be joining the majority. And while this is not a particularly pleasant life lesson, you will survive it, and become much stronger and wiser in the process.

“My wife says I never listen to her…or something like that.”

– Glenn Davis

Which strategies do people and their lawyers employ during divorces? There are only two social strategies that human beings use, according to Herb Guggenheim writing for CapitalM, the local Mensa newsletter. Those strategies are:

1. Reciprocal Altruism.

This approach is based on the idea that if you do kind things for other people, they will do kind things for you. It is the psychological equivalent of the Golden Rule, that is do unto others that which you would have them do unto you. It is the American cliche, “You pat my back and I’ll pat yours.” It is the French saying, “You send the elevator up to me and I’ll send it back down to you.”

2. I’m Only in It for Myself.

These people see the world as a hostile place. It is dog eat dog. Only the strong survive. These social Darwinist believe that while the inferior, weak people are busy being nice to each other, they will swoop down and take what they want, when they want, no matter what the consequences may be.

If both parties use Reciprocal Altruism, the divorce can be settled rather handily. If both are using I’m Only in It for Myself, then it seems they are destined to have a long and costly litigation. What happens if they are each using a different strategy? It seems to me, the I’m Only in It for Myself strategist will walk all over the Reciprocal Altruism strategist and end up with the better part of the marital estate. Guggenheim says, that while he can sleep better at night as a Reciprocal Altruist, it is his observation that people who take what they want seldom suffer for it.

Perhaps the best strategy is a blend of both. Focus on what you want and ask for it. Be polite but firm in the asking — an iron fist in a velvet glove. Like the Eagle on the Quarter, hold out the olive branch in one hand (settlement) and the arrows in the other (litigation). Then your spouse can decide which strategy it is going to be.