Narcissus admires his reflection.

In my decades of divorce practice, I've encountered folks who, if a psychological evaluation was completed, would be characterized as having narcissistic personality disorder.  A few of these peeps have been clients; others have been on the opposing side.

Either way, everyone involved is in for a rough ride.

Over the past several years, "narcissism" has also taken on a connotation-du-jour.  The diagnosis being made by dime-store psychologists (i.e. parties to family court litigation) whenever the object takes an opposing or contrary view. 

What is narcissim, really?

According to the Mayo Clinic, narcissistic personality disorder is "characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders."   A person with this personality disorder may exhibit some of the following characteristics, according to the Clinic:

• Believing you are better than others;
• Fantasizing about your success, power and attractiveness;
• Exaggerating your achievements or talents;
• Expecting constant praise and admiration;
• Ignoring other's feelings and emotions;
• Believing and acting like you are really, really special;
• Taking advantage of others;
• Expecting others to go along with your often super-sized schemes and plans;
• Exhibiting jealousy toward others;
• Believing others are jealous of you;
• Unable to maintain healthy inter-personal relationships;
• Easily hurt or rejected;
• Fragile self-esteem

If you know someone with more than a few of these traits, run.  If you are married to such a person, get ready for the inevitable divorce proceeding when you finally throw in the towel, realizing that your spouse will never change. 

If you are a lawyer representing such a person, affix your chin strap and bring a lunch.

In the divorce context, the narcissist fares quite poorly.  The above-listed features of this personality disorder are routinely identifed and rigorously addressed by family court professionals. 

In this process, the personality flaws of the narcissist are forced itno the lab for a full-on forensic evaluation.  Many of the tools in the family court professional's arsenal will be brought to bear upon the conduct of the narcissist in an effort to force short-term modification, and to achieve a stable platform.

Some red flags that I've gleaned over the years: a narcissist will change lawyers often, blaming the status of the case on the mistakes of prior legal counsel.  Also, the register of actions in the case of a narcissist will often be a mile long, peppered with hearings, motions, and more hearings.

When a narcissist is embroiled in a divorce proceeding, the children are used as pawns.  Any input from the Friend of the Court [either via a referee, family counselor, or social worker] or from a therapist, is rejected; the narcissistic parent must be dragged to court, kicking, screaming and cursing.

In the years leading up to such a divorce, the other spouse will often report being chronically verbally abused and bullied by the narcissist.  In fact, this dynamic will set the initial tone of the proceeding.

The process will next feature a series of attempts, which will take some time, where the professionals try to arrest the insidious and pervasive conduct of the narcissist.  Arrest, but not change; this person will not change.

The other spouse many times will exhibit classic signs of emotional abuse during this painful process: low self-esteem, exhaustion, a desire to give up or give in.  This person needs a strong focused divorce lawyer.

And counseling. 

During the divorce process, the other spouse is well advised to minimize the face-to-face contacts with the narcissist.  If children are involved, then communicate through emails and texts. 

If you feel threatened at home or during parenting exchanges, seek exclusive use of the marital home.  If you are separated, use a neutral transition point for the parenting exchanges; most family court judges will grant such a request simply to err on the side of everyone's safety.

Finally, stay focused on the process knowing that the process will eventually come to an end.  The Michigan Supreme Court has mandated that county family courts conclude divorce proceedings within a year.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Toward the end of last month, you may have noted the stir that a WSJ article caused over the issue of nagging and its toxic effect on marriages. The article concluded that nagging may have more potential to bust apart couples than adultery.

As a divorce attorney in the third decade of practice, I’ve witnessed many clients complain about their spouse’s nagging; and about their cheating.  It is impossible to say which is more toxic to a marital union.

Nagging, as a relationship dynamic, is all about a breakdown of communication, and an attempt to reassert control.  The article clearly stated that it was women who did the nagging while men were on the receiving end.  The “experts” interviewed for the article opined that this was because of a woman’s role as a “manager” of the family; meanwhile men tend to, “feel like a little boy being scolded by his mother.”

For their part, women complain that, when they ask about something, they just want it handled. 

Problems arise, however, when a couple takes it to the next level, and begin to argue about the nagging, rather than the root problem.  Communication breakdown.

If a couple, even a committed couple, does not learn how to cope with the dynamic, they often wind up divorced in the long-run.  Professor Howard Markman of the University of Denver, cited and quoted in the WSJ article, says nagging is the “enemy of love”.

The real barometer here is the 400-plus comments on the article; they are hilarious.  Take a look for yourself.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Who among them can be fired?

Earlier this month, SCOTUS issued a unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Evangelical Church vs EEOC.  The case holds that a church receives freedom of religion protection under the First Amendment when it comes to employment termination decisions.

This case came about because the school, located right here in Wayne County, MI, fired one of the school's "called", or vocational teachers.  The church utilized both lay teachers, and vocational teachers; the latter being formally ordained by the church congregation and equipped with a "diploma of vocation".

Cheryl Perich started out at the school as a lay teacher, then earned her diploma and was commissioned as a "called" teacher in 1999.  Her problems with teaching at the school began at the start of the 2004 school year when she was diagnosed with severe narcolepsy (sudden deep sleeps from which a person cannot be roused) and placed on disability.

When Ms. Perich attempted to return to school with medical clearance, she was fired.  She filed a claim with the EEOC alleging her firing violated the Americans with Disability Act.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan agreed with the church school that the so-called "ministerial exception" to our employment laws applied; summary judgment was granted.

On her appeal to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the lower court was reversed and instructed to allow Ms. Perich to present her claims that the firing had been retaliatory.

This case was one of the first to be argued before SCOTUS last fall.  Due to the unclear scope of the "ministerial exception", the case received much attention from the legal media and court watchers.

In its decision, SCOTUS ruled that the doors of the courthouse were essentially closed to ministers claiming violation of state or federal workplace discrimination laws.  The decision is now being touted as the most significant church-state ruling from SCOTUS since its 1990 decision affirming a general government prohibition of spiritual peyote smoking by Native American Indians.

The EEOC urged the High Court to limit the application of the "ministerial exception" to employees who functioned in an "exclusively religious function" (i.e. not teachers).  SCOTUS refused to take the bait, with Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the opinion, characterizing the government's plea as an extreme position.

So now, the line remains unclear.  SCOTUS did not precisely define how far into the church's employee roster the exception goes.

Nevertheless, the Court's decision pointed to significant factors in holding that the exception applied in this case: Ms. Perich was ordained by the church; that she performed "important religious functions" in addition to her mostly secular teaching duties; that she taught a religion class 4-days per week, etc.

Critics of the decision wonder why only the employment discrimination laws do not apply to religious employees of a house of worship.  For example, if a senior minister conducts a campaign of sexual workplace harassment upon a junior pastor, does this decision now bar the junior pastor's claims?

No doubt, there will be more cases in the future that will require the courts to define this exception with more precision.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Last Monday, the SCOTUS issued a 5-4 decision in what could turn into a seminal 4th Amendment case; United States vs Jones.  The High Court strongly embraced privacy here in the electronic age.

In 2004, Antoine Jones owned and operated a hopping night club in downtown Washington D.C.  His joint was so jumpin, it caught the attention of a joint drug task force consisting of the FBI and the Washington PD.

The task force staked out the club by filming all the action at the front door.  Also, Jones' cell phones were tapped and data dumped.  With this evidence in hand, the task force applied for and was granted a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on Jones' wife's Jeep Cherokee within 10-days and within the District of Colombia.

Problem: the GPS device was placed on Jones' vehicle on the 11th day, and in Maryland.  The vehicle was tracked for 28-days and a case for cocaine distribution was submitted for prosecution based, in part, on the evidence collected through the GPS tracker.

Prior to his first trial, Jones moved to suppress the GPS data; his motion was only granted in part.  The trial resulted in a hung jury.  Jones was tried again, and ultimately he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The federal appellate court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed Jones' conviction and SCOTUS granted the U.S. Solicitor's petition for certerorari.  On appeal, the government conceded to the botched execution of the warrant, arguing no warrant was needed in the first place.

Last November, when the case was orally argued before the United States Supreme Court, the Justices were clearly troubled by the government's argument.  An appellate lawyer can glean a lot about the likely outcome of a case from the questions justices and judges pose, or don't pose, during oral argument.

In Jones, Justice Steven Breyer likened the government's position to George Orwell's 1984, commenting to the Solicitor General, "If you win this case, there is nothing to prevent police or government from monitoring 24-hours a day, every citizen of the United States."

Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know whether the Solicitor General's argument meant that the government could place tracking devices on the vehicles of the 9 Justices.

The opinions themselves, contain Justices' musings [dicta] on what the founders would have ruled back in 1791, regarding these confounded GPS devices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurrence taking a broad view of our privacy protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, against the many highly sophisticated new electronic tracking devices deployed by the government.  Justice Anthony Scalia, writing for the majority, tailored a more narrow view of privacy; couching his conclusion on the basic definition of a "search", and clearly demarcating our "expectation of privacy" to include satellite tracking device-free vehicles.  

Flatly rejecting the government's argument that the temporary installation of the GPS tracking device was not a search, the Scalia majority affirmed the DC Circuit's reversal of Jones' conviction, warning authorities they needed a probable cause warrant in order to attach tracking devices.

Other than Sotomayor's concurrence, which does not bind future courts, SCOTUS  did not provide a sweeping enhancement of privacy rights in the electronic age.

Dodging a serious sentencing bullet, life, Mr. Jones is now free to go; his conviction for distributing cocaine stays reversed.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Thanks to our readers, this blog has over 62,000 page views in the nearly two years of its existence.  Since March 2, 2010, we have posted 200 times on legal topics of interest to readers of the Oakland Press' e-paper.

There are literally millions of blogs now on the Internet.  Of these, hundreds of thousands are devoted to legal topics.  The competition for 15-seconds of a reader's attention is keen these days.

We will continue to scour the web, fine-tuning our news feeds for interesting and useful legal information for your regular consumption.

When walking the halls of the various courts in Southeast Michigan, colleagues and judges occasionally mention one of our posts.  Grateful to claim a professional readership component among our followers, we will do our best to post relevant legal content on an ever more consistent basis.

Our view is that as the 21st Century begins to take full root, information, especially legal information, will flow at an ever faster pace.  Legal information is available to the people; it is how that information is managed that counts.

Thank you readers; check back soon.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

As our soldiers return from war in the Middle East, many cases of post traumatic stress disorder are becoming manifest.  Often, the PTSD shatters an already fragile marriage, strained to the break point from years long separation.

Many soldiers, having survived the war, come home only to be placed in a trick bag: struggling with PTSD while their marriage falls apart.  To complicate things even more, there are special rules that apply to military divorces.

The psychology of both partners to the marriage is affected by the homecoming.  The state-side spouse absorbed 100% responsibility for managing household tasks, child rearing, education, and all other domestic issues.  A sense of independence may have seeped into the spouse's "mindset" that often requires an adjustment when the other partner returns from war.

For his part, the returning soldier needs time and some space to decompress from war; especially if the individual is not only returning state-side, but also discharging from the armed forces.

If the soldier's deployment was for several years, a spouse may have developed an "interim relationship" which must now be dissolved if the marriage is going to survive.  Many do not.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) [formerly known as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act] is a federal statute that governs issues of defaulted servicemembers and the related stay of proceedings in divorce actions.  One feature of SCRA is that divorcing servicemembers are entitled to have the judge appoint them an attorney in the family court.  Interestingly, however, the statute is silent as to the scope of the appointed attorney's duties and her right to compensation for services rendered.

In a military divorce, support is also governed by federal regulations; each branch of the armed services has promulgated policies in the form of regulations that require the servicemember to provide adequate support for family members.  To calculate support, the servicemember's "leave and earnings statement" must be obtained and deciphered.

To enforce a support order, the support payee must turn to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.  The DFAS website has references to garnishment resources and information on designated agents.

Custody issues are resolved, for now, in accord with the state laws governing this issue within a divorce proceeding.  Many states have specific provisions within their custody statutes that deal with a servicemember.

Congress, however, has been considering various amendments to SCRA that would federalize custody issues arising within military divorces.  The ABA has prepared a "white paper" on the subject.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Unanimously, the 5 members of the National Transportation and Safety Board called for all states to impose a complete ban on texting, emails, and even cell phone use (hand held or hands free) while operating a vehicle.  The NTSB's little-noted but highly significant recommendation came out before the holidays last month in the wake of a series of deadly car crashes involving distracted drivers.

In one of the crashes, a Missouri teenager caused a death accident after texting 11 times in as many minutes.  There seems to be a correlation between youth and distracted driving which is compounded by the youth's relative inexperience on the road.

Now the question is whether the state legislatures have the political will to outlaw what has become ingrained behavior for most driving Americans.  Even if distracted driving is banned, there is also a question of enforcement.

With all the OEMs producing vehicles outfitted with navigation systems and sophisticated communication software built right into the car, state legislatures will soon have lunch dates with automotive industry lobbyists; for sure.  And then there is the cell phone industry; not likely to stand on the sidelines and watch this type of prohibitive legislation develop.

Here is the legislative breakdown so far, with new laws appearing on the books every year: 35 states and the District of Columbia have banned texting while driving; 30 states have banned all cell phone use by a beginning driver; 9 states have banned hand-held cell phone use while in a car.

The NTSB's firm position is simply that use of electronic communication devices is too dangerous to be allowed anywhere in the United States.  When the NTSB announced the recommended ban early last December, it chairwoman, Deborah Hersman, said, "We're not here to win a popularity contest.  No email, no text, no update, no call is worth a human life."

You got that right sister; you sure got that right.  We will be monitoring the state legislation on this topic and will report back to you with significant developments.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com