Irreconcilable Similarities.....

The divorce process was a bit weird....first we sat through a couple of other cases, one of which was truly bizarre. Echoes of Monty Python.

Wife. Husband. Lawyer. Interpreter.

Judge explained to the husband that he was in default, so it was all right if he wanted to be there, as long as he understood he Wasn't Actually There. He decided that since he Wasn't Actually There, perhaps he should be Not Actually There, and departed...

Wife spoke no English; lawyer spoke no Spanish. Ergo, interpreter.

Interpreter had problems grasping that he had to a) always tell the court what she said and b) not tell her what the "correct" answer was that she should be giving. Judge explained repeatedly, but we kept going through the same steps, same dance...

Lawyer asked her all the pro forma questions in full bore legalese. Whenever her response was that she didn't understand the question, he would ask it again, word for word the same, but slower and more loudly. When the judge suggested he use simple English, he didn't seem to know what that was---or would simplify entirely the wrong part of the sentence.

For example, he would take the sentence "It is your belief that there is no chance that future attempts at reconciliation will be successful, is that correct?" and would "simplify" it to "You think that there is no chance that future attempts at reconciliation will be successful, is that correct?"

Finally the judge stepped in and told the translator to translate "You don't think you'll be getting back together ever?" The lawyer couldn't grasp that.

Also, since the husband was in default, pretty much anything the wife asked for, she'd have gotten. Instead, her lawyer asked that her divorce be made final with *nothing* settled: no maintenance, no child support, no visitation, no custody worked out.

Judge ripped him a new one, not even lowering her voice, in front of everyone: made it very clear that she didn't believe the lawyer had made much effort for the client to understand what was going on, and that the client likely didn't understand what the lawyer was doing, and refused to settle.

Then it was our nickel.

Got asked the standard question about "irreconcilable differences", and "....future attempts at reconciliation." Okay, I understand courts are fairly solemn, and I did resist the temptation to do the Carol Merrill "voila" presentation aimed at my now-female ex and respond with "ya think?"

But I couldn't help it; I still answered with something along the lines of "Gee, I really don't think so" on the reconciliation.

Wasn't until after we left that I realized that the correct label wasn't irreconcilable differences. It was irreconcilable similarities: I wanted a marriage with one from column A and one from column B, and had found myself in a marriage with two from column A and nobody in column B at all.

Anyroad, we capped off the day with a dinner in Greektown and then getting reasonably tiddly. Other than that, not much significance........