Math and music may be the only universal languages we share with our ancestors. With math, there is no room for error. Truth be told, I was never very good at math. Luckily, divorce lawyers only have to know how to divide, generally by two. As a child, I remember learning how to find the ‘least common denominator.’ Unfortunately, finding the least common denominator is rarely important these days except when adding fractions or following a recipe. Over the years I have observed that failing marriages often involve uncommon numerators and denominators. It is often said, locally, that “Ones do not marry Tens.” Generally, the betrothed expect they share more in common than not; however, time and life experience may result in a different reality. When one or both spouses reach the conclusion, their marriage is irretrievably broken, both the numerator and denominator have changed. Like ancient Pythagoreans, I submit that all relations can be reduced to numerical quantities. Divorce, as in math, often requires finding the least common denominator to resolve the case. Numerators First, you must assign a number to each party’s numerator. Given the nature of intimate human interaction, I try to identify each party’s fundamental emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence (EQ) is the ability to understand and recognize one’s own emotions and those of others. EQ qualities include self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, social skills and motivation. For ease of reference, use a scale for each quality from (1-3) with the lowest number reserved for the strength of each quality. A gregarious, smart, kind, considerate and economically productive partner might score 5. A lazy, angry dolt might score 15. Compare the numerators and try to objectively elevate both numerators to fit within the local truism that ‘Ones do not marry Tens.’ The longer the length of the marriage, the more likely the numerators will be similar. Numerators, like people, do not change much over time. Denominators Unlike numerators, denominators tend to be more diverse, especially where self-interest transmutes previously held values, such as emotional attachment or fidelity. Denominators common to failing marriages are subject to erratic change and may oscillate over time. Obtaining an accurate number for the denominator is more difficult than the antecedent numerator. Given that assigning numerical values to human relations is an imprecise science, I arbitrarily look for the following likely indicators of future behavior: length of marriage, relative economic circumstances, education, and mental health. The scale for a denominator is larger than for the relatively stable numerator, and a scale from (3-10) allows the observer to capture a wider array of human behavior. Denominators are intended to reflect reality at the time of measurement. Meaning, most litigants migrate toward one extreme or another following breakdown of their marriage. With denominators, the highest number is reserved for the most divergent or unstable indicator. For example, a middle-aged man exhibiting signs of depression and infidelity might score a very high cumulative denominator whereas the proverbial ‘innocent spouse’ will likely have a lower denominator. Whenever possible, reduce the fraction before finding the least common denominator. For example, 11/33 = 1/3. Least Common Denominators Once you have determined the components of the two fractions, which fairly represent the parties, finding the least common denominator is easy. Change each fraction, using equivalent fractions, to make their denominators the same as the least common denominator. Using the parties described herein might result in the following: Even tempered preacher’s wife in marriage of long duration: EQ Score: self-awareness (1), self-regulation (1), empathy (1), social skills (2) and motivation (2) = a numerator of 7. Denominator Score: length of marriage (3), relative economic circumstances (3), education (3), and mental health (3) = a stable denominator of 12. Depressed, cheating, high-income TV evangelist: EQ Score: self-awareness (2), self-regulation (2), empathy (3), social skills (2) and motivation (2) = a numerator of 11. Denominator Score: length of marriage (3), relative economic circumstances (10), education (10), and mental health (10) = an erratic denominator of 33. Least Common denominator: 7/12 + 11/33 (reduced to 1/3) = 7/12 + 1/3 = 7/12 + 4/12. The least common denominator is 12. Simply put, the lower the least common denominator, the higher the probability a case will settle. Conversely, the higher the least common denominator, the more likely the case will have to be decided by the Court. 1Pythagoras once said: “Intelligence and passion are possessed by other animals, but reason by man alone. Number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and the cause of gods and demons.” 2With the advent of the HP-35 calculator in 1972, advanced math skills became hand-held. 3https://www.mathsisfun.com/least-common-denominator.html How do you find the common denominator when adding fractions? A. Find the Least Common Multiple of the denominators (which is called the Least Common Denominator). B. Change each fraction (using equivalent fractions) to make their denominators the same as the least common denominator. C. Then add (or subtract) the numerators, as we wish! D. a/b +/- e/b = a +/- e b

According to myth, Pandora could not resist opening her wedding gift from Zeus. In so doing, she unleashed sadness, misery and death into the world, shaped like tiny little buzzing insects. All that remained in the box was Hope. Hope fluttered from the box like a beautiful dragonfly, touching the wounds created by the evil creatures and healing them. While Pandora had released pain and suffering into the world, she had also allowed Hope to follow. Provisions granting parents a first right of refusal present a similar paradox. Trial courts are not obligated to include a ‘right of first refusal’ when entering a custody order. Considerable experience suggests that negotiated parenting plans often include a provision regarding ‘right of first refusal’ or ‘surrogate care.’ There are several common stipulations like these: [A[ Each party shall grant to the other a "right of first refusal" for parenting time with regard to care of the minor children if the children are to be outside the custody of the parent with the children for two hours or more. [B] If a party to this Agreement is unable to care for the [child/children] during a period when that parent is scheduled to have the [child/children] overnight or longer [or some other period exceeding 4 hours], that parent shall give the other parent [__] hours [written] notice and the opportunity to care for the [child/children] during that party's absence before making arrangements with a third party. This provision does not apply when the[child/children] [is/are] out of town with a parent. [C] If either parent is unable to care for the child during his/her parenting time for a period of overnight or longer, that parent shall give the other parent the first right of refusal to care for the child prior to making arrangements with a third party. That parent shall give the other parent at least four hours advanced written notice. Too often, interpretation of when such a provision ‘kicks in’ promotes discord, even among reasonable people. As a practical matter, good parents do not need a court order to first consider the other parent. Following ‘the Golden Rule’ is an important consideration in determining which parent is more likely to allow frequent, meaningful contact with the other. Where both parents are committed to the legal concept of shared parenting, there is no need to include the right of first refusal in a parenting plan. A different conclusion is appropriate where one of the parents does not support the child’s relationship with the other parent and routinely delegates care to another for significant periods of time, including overnight. Generally, the suffering accompanying a discordant parental relationship unleashes sadness upon the children. What remains is Hope—hope that the other parent will treat you as he/she wishes to be treated. 1 Rackers v. Rackers, 500 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. App. 2016) 2 Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. App. 2006) 3 §452.375.2(4) RSMo. 4 This dynamic changes once either parent remarries or cohabits.

Long before statehood, indigenous tribes populated the Show Me State. According to oral tradition, the Dhegiha Siouan language speaking tribe migrated down the Ohio River valley to the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers during the Middle Woodland period, A.D. 200 to A.D. 400. During the Late Woodland period, A.D. 400 to A.D. 500, the Dhegiha tribes migrated up the central Mississippi River valley, settling in the St. Louis area as well as traveling outward from the valley following the Missouri River. At some point, A.D. 1200-A.D. 1250, the Omaha and Ponca tribes separated, traveling farther up the Missouri River. By the time Europeans paddled these same waters (1673 A.D.), the dominate local tribes were known as the “Little” and “Great” Osage. In typical European fashion, the two names had no connection to the relative size or predominance of either tribe. The ‘Little Osage’ lived north of the Osage River and the “Great Osage” lived south of the river, stretching into Arkansas. During the eighteenth century Osages began practicing matrilocal residence, which meant the family lived with the wife’s kin. One Frenchman noted that after a father’s death, “the eldest son keeps his father’s horses, the eldest daughter becomes the owner of the lodge.” As matrilocality became more deeply rooted in Osage society, a woman obtained divorce by throwing her husband’s personal belongings out of their home. She retained control of the lodge and all household goods. Some of my clients might appreciate the simplicity of how an Osage woman divorced her husband. At least annually, a client inquires whether he/she may dispose of his/her spouse’s personal property left behind at the time of separation. Often this question is posed after said personal property is already in the rubbish bin. Retrieval of personal belongings is a fertile source of argument, dispute and unpleasant encounters between divorcing spouses. If given the opportunity, I always advise my client of his/her duty to safeguard a spouse’s property under the contract theory of “bailment.” "A contract for bailment may be written, oral, express or implied." Stone v. Crown Diversified Indus. Corp., 9 S.W.3d 659, 669 (Mo. App. 1999). For a bailment contract to exist, there must be delivery by the bailor and acceptance by the bailee of the subject matter of the bailment. Id. Acceptance by the bailee may be implied, but only where "there is something to show notice to or knowledge of the alleged bailee that the goods are in fact in his or her possession." Id. Without notice or knowledge, there can be no acceptance by the bailee, and thus, no valid bailment contract. Id. "A bailment contract may arise by implication of law . . . where one comes into possession of a chattel and exercises physical control over it, or where possession has been acquired accidentally, or for some purpose other than bailment[.]" 8A Am. Jur. 2d, Bailments section 38 (1997). "Where the bailor pleads and presents evidence of breach of the bailment contract by the bailee failing to return the article in an undamaged condition, the burden of proof is on the bailee to plead and provide due care on its part[.]" Temple v. McCaughen & Burr, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 322, 326 (Mo. App. 1992). These same principles apply to property left behind by a separating spouse. The remaining spouse has possession and owes a duty of reasonable care to retain the property and return it in an undamaged condition. If one damages the property by throwing it outside in the rain, a court will likely assess damages against that individual equal to the fair market value of the property damaged by his/her actions. The better course of action is to provide advance written notice to the bailor (absent spouse) of a date and time to retrieve the property. Once such notice is given, the bailee should rent a storage facility or segregate items in a home storage space (i.e. garage) until the bailor can retrieve his/her items. 1Osage Cultural History, https://www.osagenation-nsn.gov 2 Victor Tixier, Tixier’s Travels on the Osage Prairies, ed. John Francis McDermort, trans. Albert J. Salvan (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 194), 182 3 Burns, History of the Osage People, 210 4 Bailey, Changes in Osage Social Organization, 13, 16 5 In re Marriage of Pate, 591 S.W.2d 384, 388 (Mo. App. S.D. 1979)

In the early summer of 1918, Albert Einstein began divorce negotiations with his first wife, Mileva1. He had been separated2 from her for some period and begun a relationship with Elsa3. Einstein sent a letter through a friend4 with details of how he would be prepared to support her and the children. During these negotiations the question of the Nobel Prize5 was raised. It is not quite certain who first suggested that the interest from the Prize, then some 30,000 Swedish Kroner,6 would be sufficient to keep Einstein’s family in at least modest circumstances, but it appears to have been Mileva. By July, Einstein had received his first papers of divorce and then had to give evidence before a tribunal in Berlin. Between the Armistice of November, 1918, and the end of the following year he was to become the most famous scientist in the world. His divorce was settled while he was in town giving a series of lectures on February 14, 1919. Simultaneously, he awarded to Mileva any money that should come from a Nobel Prize-several years before he was awarded it. When the prize came, three years later, the cash was passed on from Sweden, via Berlin, to Zurich. Some was lost in movement through the foreign exchanges and more by bad management. With what was left Mileva bought a pleasant house on the Zurichberg. The following year she formally obtained permission to retain the name of Einstein; and, as Mileva Einstein, she lived for another quarter of a century, overshadowed by illness and the worry of a schizophrenic younger son. As soon as his lecture series in Zurich was completed in the spring of 1919, Einstein returned to Berlin. And here, on June 2, he married Elsa7 in a civil ceremony at Berlin-Wilmersdorf. __________________________________________________________________ 1Mileva Marie and Einstein met as students and were married January, 1903. They separated in the summer of 1914. They were described as a couple who ‘respected one another as long as they did not have to live together.’ 2He was living in Berlin, and Mileva was living in Zurich, Switzerland. 3Elsa Lowenthal, was a widow with two daughters, aged 20 and 18. She and Albert shared an uncle, Casar Koch, and were also related back along the Einstein family tree, they were distant cousins. 4Michaelangelo Besso was a friend of over 40 years. They worked together at the Swiss Patent Office. It is believed Besso was the first person whom Einstein told about his paper on the photoelectric effect, also known as Special Theory of Relativity. A paper submitted without citation or authority. 5Awarded autumn 1922 for his earlier work on the theory of Special Relativity. 6$7.95M U.S. as of 8/26/97. 7Source, Einstein, The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark (1971) 8Visited native Missourian Edwin Hubble at Mt. Wilson, CA, in February, 1930

Supreme Court Limits Trial Court Ability to Issue Temporary Custody Orders without an Evidentiary Hearing