Bush White House Attorney Beats Wife — Or Did She Beat Him?

On Wednesday, January 4, 2010, John Michael Farren, 57 —  former Deputy White House Counsel during President George W. Bush's second term; Undersecretary for International Trade in the Commerce Department under his father, President George H.W. Bush, as well as Deputy Manager for the senior Bush's 1992 Re-Election Campaign, and Deputy Director for his transition team in 1989; and  former General Counsel at Xerox  Corp. — threw his wife, Mary Margaret Farren, 43, an attorney in Skadden's DC Office, across the room, strangled her into unconsciousness and temporary blindness; pulled out globs of her hair, and beat her about the face and head with a flashlight, breaking her jaw and her nose, causing facial fractures and lacerations.  Consequently, he's been criminally charged with attempted murder, strangulation and first-degree assault.  But was all of this predictable — except perhaps, the severity of the beating.

On Monday, January 4, 2010.   Mary Margaret Farren was hiding out at a friend's house, when she blindsided her husband,of twelve years, with a divorce complaint that accused him of subjecting her to "long-term verbal, emotional and, in at least one instance, physical abuse."  Also declaring that she "could no longer remain married and live in a marital relationship where (she) was in a state of almost constant anxiety as a result of the Defendant's temper, volatility and personality,"  There is every indication that she was also seeking spousal and child support and full custody of their children. 

After shaking her husband to the core, by creating a public record that impunes his character, and by putting his finances and access to his children at risk, she returned home to live with him . . .

On Tuesday, January 5, 2010 John Farren did not mention the impending divorce, and neither did Mary Margaret.  .

On Wednesday, January 6, John Farren continued to remain silent about the divorce, so Mary Margaret brought it up.  In response, John Farren asked her not to divorce him, and as he approached her in this regard, she ordered him,  "Do not approach me!" According to her, that's when he "exploded in rage," which is probably exactly what she intended.

If ever a person would be inclined to hit their spouse, it would be after their spouse blindsided them with a divorce complaint, while they were still living together . . .  Especially a divorce complaint that reveals a successful search for their money, and that impunes their character, in a public record; and that otherwise reveals that their spouse has embarked upon a hostile divorce, that is designed to achieve a significant bounty from the marital estate, including the children.  What person would not know that that there would be volatility in their household, following these events?  Consequently, most people would take precautions, like moving out of the house until the divorce was settled?  But this woman, who did not care to have her husband's input before she filed for divorce, and who arranged not to be at home when he got the bad news — after these events occurred, she returned home, to live with him.  And when he did not react to what she had done, she initiated a reaction.  She drew him into the hurtful and fearful place, that would necessarily exist in one who has been informed that life as he knows it is about to end, by pretending she wanted to discuss the divorce, although it was already a foregone conclusion.  When he took the bait, she called him to heel, like a dog, "Do not approach me!"

She must have known the likely effect of that, because John Michael Farren was so predictable, until even a White Houses colleague observed that he was "rigidly preoccupied with hierarchy . . . when I saw him get really, really mad at people, it was if people didn't show the proper deference to the hierarchy,"

In John Michael Farren's mind, he stands above his wife in their marital hierarchy —  and his wife  knows it.  By his standards, he is the dominant gender; and since he is considerably older than his wife, he is her senior.  He is the champion, who climbed from the bottom to secure a position for them at the top, opening doors for her, including a position at one of the most prestigious law firms in the country, where she is privileged to work from home —  in another state. He was the wealth gatherer, who accumulated cash and investments, that enabled them to live in a $4.1 million dollar home . . .  And when she ordered him, she thumbed her nose at his hierarchical fantasies.  In that moment, in his mind's ear, he probably "heard" her "say," Everything that defines you means absolutely nothing to me, except to the extent that it informs me how to take what you have, and be rid of you . . .

In the movie, Enough, Jennifer Lopez' character baits her homicidal husband, who was relentlessly in pursuit of ending her life, into a physical confrontation, in order to "justifiably" kill him, before he can kill her.  Similarly, in the John and Mary Farren fiasco, it appears that Mary may have baited John into a physical confrontation, so that she could kick him out of his house, take his money,  obtain sole custody of his kids, and retire from working, at his expense . . .  She also may have hoped to end things with John Farren's death.  Otherwise, why did she tell the police, who were preparing to apprehend him, that he had a gun . . . 

It appears that Mary Margaret has been engaged in this divorce process for a long time before she served John with the complaint because, there is evidence that she engaged in a deep fishing expedition, for John's money, "in court documents, Mary Farren detailed her husband's assets. He had several bank accounts containing hundreds of thousands of dollars, one with $1.8 million and another with $1 million."  Also, some of the arguments to freeze his funds, secure his money for an impending judgment, deny him access to his money, and a request for money to compensate for the money that he won't be able to earn while in jail, appear far to sophisticated to be a spontaneous response to an event.

In Connecticut, filing for divorce does nothing toward getting one's spouse out of the house since, after a divorce is set in motion, "If you are living together at the commencement of the divorce . . . neither party may deny the other party use of the current primary residence ... without order of a judicial authority."  So Mary Margaret Farren must have been looking for a way to get her husband to leave.  Also, since she chose to sue him for fault, based only on subjective claims, like verbal and emotional abuse, except for a one time hitting that, if it happened at all, it was years ago, it isn't likely she would have prevailed in her claims of abuse, sufficient to convince a court to give her the exclusive use of the marital home.  But that problems would be solved, if he hit her . . .

According to Mary Margaret Farren, John Farren hit her one time, in their twelve year marriage.  That shows that he is capable of  engaging in a physical confrontation with a woman —  but a mere one time hitting, in twelve years, also evidences that he is not inclined to apply physical force to his wife.  It also infers that his wife probably knows how to avoid physical confrontations with him.  But besides their history, there is the fact that everything related to this event was initiated by, and defined by, Mary Margaret Farren.  And she accomplished most of these sophisticated mental maneuvers, after the injury that she says will prevent her from ever working again, due to, "permanent damage to her though process," for which she is asking her husband to compensate her with $9 million, for lost wages, while he, of course, continues to otherwise support her . . .

Mary Margaret Farren decided that she would notify her husband that he was being divorced by serving him with a complaint for divorce, without notice, and while still living with him.

Mary Margaret Farren determined the time and the manner in which John Michael Farren would receive notice she was divorcing him.

Mary Margaret Farren decided that she would occupy the marital home with John Farren, after  serving him with a divorce complaint.

Mary Margaret Farren initiated a discussion about a divorce that was a foregone conclusion, when she did not discuss the divorce, before initiating it, and she rebuffed her husband, as he attempted to participate in the "discussion" that she initiated.

Mary Margaret Farren demeaned her husband in a manner that he was reactive to, at a time when he was most vulnerable to over-reaction.

Mary Margaret Farren told the police how to charge her husband, by repetitively defining what happened to her as attempted murder. She never simply describes facts like being held down, getting hit, words spoken, or her state of mind  —  leaving the legal conclusions to others.  Every thing that this attorney-wife says about the encounter with her husband, asserts the legal definition for attempted murder.  Her communication with the children: "daddy's trying to kill me;" Her communication with her neighbor: "Mary Farren told the residents . . .her husband was trying to kill her; Recounting her husband's words: "He said to me, 'I am killing you' as he was strangling me;" Her communication with the police, "She said her husband had tried to kill her, first with his hands, then with a metal flashlight," "She made several remarks implying that she did not think she was going to live." She even included specific language, that meets the statutory requirement for attempted murder, which requires a plan, "She said his plan was to kill her and then himself." And she inferred it was a continuing plot to kill her, that requires more money from her husband, "based on my husband's past associations and resources, I will need enhanced personal security measures, including but not limited to bodyguards, for a substantial period of time."

Finally, Mary Margaret Farren introduced another possible ending to this saga, namely, the death of John Michael Farren, by the police.  Even though there was no gun involved in the incident, and possibly no gun at all, before the police headed for her house to get John Farren, Mary Margaret informed them that there was a gun in the house — somewhere.  Perhaps the "somewhere" was her wiggle room out of trouble, in case the police used deadly force, and the gun she cautioned them about, was nowhere to be found . . .  Vocal uncertainty is an indication of deception.

We cry for women because they are the victims of an impossible standard for feminine attractiveness, but there are no tears for men who are the victims of an impossible standard for masculine competence.  Just as women are driven to diet, and dye and makeup, men are driven to bulk up, strive, and become prosperous.  Some women descend into conditions like eating disorders, some men descend in behaviors like compulsive working, rigid self-management, or destructive addictions.

There is another male malady that is seldom mentioned, namely, solitary worry because, while women believe that they know what it takes to be a woman, men really don't believe that they know what it takes to be a man because, masculinity is a much more elusive concept.  The closest thing to a working definition of masculinity —  is success.  How tough is that!  Men are just supposed to make it happen.  When a man marries, and sometimes even within his nuclear family, he accepts responsibility for the survival of his family, sometimes taking care to protect women and children from the hard truth that the silver lining is not always so firmly in their sight, or within their grasp. Men don't have it so much better than women, proven by the fact that they keel over and die seven years earlier.

This marriage is a case in point, for the different expectations for men and women.  John Michael Farren is a 57-years-old attorney, who has worked most of his life, accumulating significant contacts, a stellar reputation, and wealth.  Mary Margaret Farren is 43-years-old, and she is an engineer and an attorney, who has acquired most of her upward mobility through her husband, and she has not accumulated wealth. After twelve years of marriage, Mary Margarett Farren would like to discard John, stop working, and receive support from John for their children, until they reach majority, and for herself, for the rest of her life.  A man would be embarrassed to ask for that, and if he did ask, he would not get it.  But according to Mary Margaret, "given the community in which we live, and the station of living to which we are accustomed, and our plans for the future life and education of our children, the defendant's obligations to support his children and me are substantial,"  So substantial until she doesn't want him to be allowed to access his own money, in order to get out of jail!"

If John Farren had deserted Mary Margaret, I would support her right not to have her lifestyle dismantled because he changed his mind, but she's leaving him!  Marriage is a contract for life, and the person leaving is breaking that contract, and they should get nothing!  No children, no money, no house, nothing!  As a matter of fact they should acquire the obligation to assist in reestablishing the party they are divorcing, to the "station of living to which they are accustomed," whether the person left is male or female . . .

Clearly John Michael Farren committed a crime when he assaulted his wife, but she may have intentionally incited him to commit that crime, if she engaged in behavior that was intended to "influence the mind of another to the commission of a crime."