The Divorce: 15 Essential Questions and Answers

1. Why does Jeremy replace the locks and trick Naomi into moving out before telling her he wants a divorce?

Jeremy’s lock change and forced relocation set him up for a custody advantage. He wants Naomi out of the marital home so he can claim she abandoned the family. The renovation story is a cover; he has already packed her bags with excess belongings, signaling a long-term separation (Chapter 1-2). This calculated deception foreshadows his later legal tactics, including draining bank accounts and retaining top lawyers.

Evidence context: In Chapter 2, Jeremy refuses to kiss Naomi goodbye, symbolising emotional withdrawal. The heavy luggage and winter coat for a supposed short renovation hint at his premeditated plan. The replaced locks physically bar her from the house, reinforcing his control over domestic space.

2. Why does Naomi continue to deny the divorce and refuse to hire a lawyer even after Jeremy’s lawyer contacts her?

Naomi clings to the belief that her marriage is a temporary blip. She composes a draft email insisting the couple will work things out, but never sends it (Chapter 7). Her mother’s accusation of an affair and the prenup advice do not shake her denial. Naomi’s refusal to accept the divorce stems from fear of losing Teddy and her identity as a wife; she also suspects Veronica is behind the breakup, not Jeremy himself.

Evidence context: The draft email in Chapter 7 reveals her refusal to accept reality. In Chapter 8, she labels Jeremy’s behaviour a “midlife crisis” after Teddy reassures her about no other women. This denial persists even after she catches Jeremy with Veronica in Chapter 10.

3. What does the stuffed elephant given to Teddy by Veronica symbolise, and how does it connect to both characters’ histories?

The elephant originally belonged to Veronica’s missing son Dominic. Giving it to Teddy represents her emotional release from hoping Dominic will return (Chapter 57). For Naomi, the elephant becomes evidence of danger when she finds it stabbed with a knife and covered in red sauce in Teddy’s drawer (Chapter 27). The toy thus symbolises both Veronica’s transferred maternal love and Naomi’s possession of a child she believes is hers—a point of contention that nearly destroys them both.

Evidence context: In Chapter 57, Veronica decides Dominic is never coming back and passes the elephant to Teddy. In Chapter 27, Naomi frames the elephant as evidence of poisoning or threat, while later the elephant is used against her in mediation (Chapter 29). The knife-ridden elephant foreshadows the violence to come.

4. How does the prenuptial agreement become a weapon for both Jeremy and Naomi?

Jeremy forces Naomi to sign a prenup before marriage, but the agreement is so coercive that Ezra Fletcher calls it a “mess” that won’t hold up (Chapter 18). Jeremy uses the prenup as a financial weapon, emptying joint accounts and leaving Naomi nearly penniless (Chapter 9). Naomi’s lawyer counters by pointing out the prenup’s unfair terms during mediation, forcing Jeremy to concede ground (Chapter 20). However, the prenup also motivates Jeremy to seek full custody to avoid child support payments (Chapter 21).

Evidence context: In Chapter 9, Naomi finds the accounts drained; in Chapter 20, Ezra reveals Jeremy’s tactic of restoring funds just before mediation. The prenup’s existence colours every negotiation and underscores the power imbalance in the marriage.

5. Why does Veronica not reveal her true identity as Teddy’s biological mother earlier in the story?

Veronica only confirms Teddy is her son through a secret DNA test during his birthday party (Chapter 61). Before that, she lacks definitive proof. She suspects it because Teddy resembles her ex-boyfriend Clay, but she must wait for results. Additionally, she wants to protect Teddy’s happiness and avoid a custody battle that could traumatise him. Revealing the truth too soon might also put her at risk from Naomi, who she now knows will stop at nothing.

Evidence context: In Chapter 61, Ronnie (Veronica) locks herself in a bedroom to view the DNA report showing 99.9999998% maternity probability. She decides to wait until after the party to tell Jeremy. Her silence earlier is also driven by her own past as a recovering addict and her fear that the Simington family’s housekeeper would not believe her.

6. What is the significance of the “monkey videos” code phrase?

Jeremy and Teddy use “monkey videos” as a secret password to send Teddy to his room, allowing adults to talk privately (Chapter 5). Later, when Naomi tries to rescue Teddy from the burning house, she cannot get him to open his door without the code, and she does not know it (Chapter 68). The code symbolises the fractured communication between Naomi and Jeremy—while she is the mother, she is excluded from the closed loop of father-son secrets. It also becomes a barrier that almost costs Teddy his life.

Evidence context: In Chapter 5, Jeremy uses the code to dismiss Teddy. In Chapter 40, Naomi herself uses it to keep Teddy from discovering the assault in the hallway. Her inability to recall the code during the fire (Chapter 68) forces her to rely on Jeremy, who is unreachable–highlighting her loss of access and control.

7. Why does Naomi push her own lawyer, Ezra, down the basement stairs?

Naomi has just knocked Veronica unconscious with a rock and bound her in the cellar. When Ezra arrives and hears Veronica’s screams, he opens the cellar door, discovering the truth. Naomi knows that once Ezra calls the police, she will lose Teddy forever. In a split-second decision, she pushes him to stop him from reporting the crime (Chapter 45). This act transforms her from a victim into a murderer, showing that her maternal drive overpowers any moral boundaries.

Evidence context: In Chapter 45, Naomi hears Ezra’s footsteps and realises he will uncover the situation. Chapter 65 confirms that Ezra had entered the cellar after hearing Veronica scream; Naomi’s push kills him instantly. The escalations are driven by her fear that Teddy will be taken from her.

8. How does the character of Ezra Fletcher serve as both legal lifeline and moral foil to Naomi?

Ezra is the only lawyer who agrees to represent Naomi after Jeremy blocks all top attorneys. He consistently advises her to think of her child’s best interests and to avoid drastic actions (Chapter 18). Yet he also becomes a victim of her desperation when she kills him to conceal her crimes. Ezra’s willingness to bring her dinner and share personal vulnerabilities (Chapter 24) blurs professional boundaries, making his death even more tragic. He represents the possibility of a fair outcome through legal means, which Naomi ultimately rejects.

Evidence context: In Chapter 24, Ezra admits he still carries the clear quartz crystal Naomi gave him. In Chapter 32, he tells her to remove her wedding ring to strengthen her case. His death in Chapter 45 is caused by the very client he was trying to protect.

9. What role does Cora Janzen play in Naomi’s investigation of Veronica’s past?

Cora appears as a fellow divorced mother who offers friendship and practical help. When Naomi is humiliated by the process server, Cora takes Teddy to the playground (Chapter 12). She recommends lawyer Stefanie Gorman (Chapter 13) and later uses her policeman boyfriend to run Veronica’s license plate (Chapter 22). However, Cora also attends Teddy’s birthday party despite knowing Naomi was excluded (Chapter 33), revealing her self-interest. She is a mixed character: a lifeline for Naomi yet a reminder of how social circles can shift in divorce.

Evidence context: In Chapter 22, Cora enthusiastically offers the cop connection. In Chapter 33, Naomi spots Cora at the party and feels betrayed. Cora’s earlier warnings about custody risks (Chapter 13) prove prescient, but her eventual attendance at the party underscores the theme of shifting loyalties.

10. How does the disappearance of baby Dominic (Teddy) set the entire plot in motion?

Naomi, desperate for a child after infertility, steals infant Teddy from a drug-addled Clay’s car at a rest stop in St. Louis (Chapter 63). She creates a false birth certificate with her mother’s help and tricks Jeremy into believing Teddy is his son via a faked paternity test using Mr. Roth’s DNA (Chapter 64). This original crime explains Naomi’s obsessive control over Teddy, Jeremy’s later suspicion, and Veronica’s hunt for her missing child. The identity theft at the story’s core drives all subsequent deceptions and violence.

Evidence context: Chapter 63 reveals Naomi’s confession of taking the baby. Chapter 64 details the fraudulent paternity test using Jeremy’s Alzheimer’s-stricken father. The epilogue shows that Jeremy himself later discovers the truth through Clay Barkley, leading him to plot Naomi’s murder.

11. What is the meaning of the amethyst crystal Naomi wears, and how does it contrast with Ezra’s use of clear quartz?

Naomi wears an amethyst necklace that she fingers for calm in stressful moments (Chapter 7). The crystal represents her reliance on hope and denial rather than action. In contrast, Ezra accepts a clear quartz crystal from Naomi before mediation, stating it attracts luck and positivity (Chapter 20). He keeps it in his pocket throughout the proceedings, and it reappears when he admits he still carries it (Chapter 32). The crystals symbolise different approaches: Naomi’s passive retreat into magical thinking, versus Ezra’s pragmatic embrace of any tool—even a symbol—to fight for his client.

Evidence context: In Chapter 7, Naomi refers to the crystal as her calm ritual. In Chapter 20, she gives clear quartz to Ezra, who puts it in his pocket and later says he still has it (Chapter 32). The crystal’s presence at key moments highlights the tension between fate and human agency.

12. Why does the narrative shift to a first-person perspective labeled “Annie” in some chapters?

The protagonist is initially called Naomi, but in several intermediate chapters she is referred to as Annie (e.g., Chapter 3, Chapter 5, Chapter 39). This reflects the character’s fractured sense of self and the different roles she plays: Naomi is the hopeful wife, while Annie is the desperate, impulsive woman who commits violence. The name shift also mirrors the theme of identity theft and the way Naomi has stolen another woman’s child. In the prologue, the narrator is unnamed; later the name Annie surfaces briefly before returning to Naomi. This inconsistency deliberately unsettles the reader, hinting at the protagonist’s instability.

Evidence context: Chapter 3 begins with "Annie drives to the dusty apartment," but the character is the same person. Chapter 39 uses "Annie" again when she retrieves her car. The pattern suggests a deliberate narrative technique to blur identity, underlined by the epilogue’s bombshell that Jeremy was the real villain all along.

13. How does the fire at the end of the book both rescue and condemn Naomi and Veronica?

Naomi sets the fire to destroy evidence of Ezra’s and Veronica’s bodies in the cellar (Chapter 66). But the blaze traps her instead: she cannot escape because Fletcher knocks her unconscious and the flames block the stairs (Chapter 69). Naomi dies in the fire, praying Veronica will raise Teddy. Veronica escapes with Teddy onto the roof and is rescued by firefighters (Chapter 70). The fire therefore provides a cleansing end for Naomi’s crimes while allowing Veronica to publicly emerge as Teddy’s protector. For Jeremy, the fire accomplishes his goal of eliminating Naomi without direct blame (epilogue).

Evidence context: Chapter 66 describes Naomi’s plan to ignite whiskey with a lighter. Chapter 69 shows her fatal acceptance. Chapter 70 shows Veronica and Teddy on the roof as sirens approach. The epilogue reveals Jeremy orchestrated the larger context to kill Naomi.

14. What is revealed about Jeremy’s true character in the Epilogue, and how does it reframe the entire story?

The Epilogue, narrated by Jeremy, reveals that he knows Teddy is not his biological son. Clay Barkley told him the truth two years earlier; Jeremy had Clay murdered and staged his death as an overdose. He then systematically manipulated the divorce to drive Naomi to her death—gaslighting, poisoning her kombucha, planting evidence, and letting her take the fall for the fire. Jeremy’s apparent victimhood in the earlier narrative is a performance; he is the ultimate manipulator, willing to kill anyone who threatens his ownership of Teddy. This twist recasts every previous scene of tenderness or anger as calculation.

Evidence context: Epilogue: "Two years earlier, Clay Barkley approached Jeremy claiming Naomi stole his infant, Dominic. A secret paternity test confirmed Teddy is Clay’s child. To keep Teddy, Jeremy arranged Clay’s murder, staged as a drug overdose." The epilogue also states he planned Naomi’s death through the divorce.

15. How does the Author’s Note prepare readers for the controversial content of the novel, and why might it be significant?

In the Author’s Note, Freida McFadden states she writes family-friendly thrillers without graphic violence or explicit sex, but acknowledges controversial topics may arise. She provides a content warning list on her website, noting that the warnings may contain spoilers. This upfront transparency signals to readers that while the novel avoids explicit gore, it deals with kidnapping, murder, and manipulation. The note also establishes the author’s ethical boundaries, which makes the fire scene and implied violence all the more impactful—the horror is psychological rather than gratuitous. It tells the audience, “You are safe here, but be prepared.”

Evidence context: The Author’s Note (Chapter 1) describes family-friendly thrillers with content warnings available online. The afterword reinforces the invitation to leave reviews. The note’s commitment to reader protection contrasts with the dark choices the characters make, creating a layered reading experience.

Internal links: