Throuple Trouble

Threats of suicide and of disclosing an ex's sexual orientation may count as threats for harassment purposes (for the non-polyamorous as much as for the polyamorous, of course).

From Diedra T. v. Justina R., decided Friday by the Nebraska Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Jeffrey Funke:

Justina and Diedra met in 2015 and became "best friends." Thereafter, Justina, Diedra, and Diedra's husband began having sexual relations. Justina and Diedra agree that they never held themselves out as girlfriends, but disagree as to whether they described the relationship between Justina, Diedra, and Diedra's husband as polyamorous.

On March 30, 2022, Diedra filed a petition and affidavit to obtain a domestic abuse protection order against Justina on behalf of herself and her children. The petition alleged that Diedra ended her sexual relationship with Justina around March 2021 and "completely cut off" and blocked contact with Justina on March 15, 2022. Diedra further alleged that Justina had previously threatened to kill herself if they could not continue their sexual relationship and became "more obsessive" after Diedra ended that relationship. Diedra also alleged that after she cut off contact with Justina, Justina began texting and calling her from various phone numbers, begging Diedra to talk to her and threatening to disclose her relationship with Diedra and Diedra's husband to Diedra's employer and to kill herself. According to Diedra, Justina sent her 150 or more messages per day.

In addition, the petition alleged that Justina came to Diedra's home on March 29, 2022, and refused to leave until police ordered her to depart. Diedra alleged that she showed police her phone, which contained 63 texts, as well as missed calls, from Justina within the past 24 hours. Diedra also alleged that Justina texted and called her 10 more times on March 29 after she left Diedra's home….

We agree with Justina that a certain number of texts or calls does not in itself constitute harassment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.02. However, … the record shows threats by Justina to "out Diedra as a queer woman to [Diedra's] employer" and to kill herself if they could not continue their sexual relationship…. [Section] 28-311.02 is not limited to threats of physical violence; it merely refers to conduct which "seriously … threatens." Further, § 28-311.02 also encompasses conduct that is seriously terrifying or intimidating, as well as that which is seriously threatening. ["Harass means to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously terrifies, threatens, or intimidates the person and which serves no legitimate purpose." -EV] As such, viewed objectively, Justina's statements—and in particular, her statements about disclosing the details of her sexual relationship with Diedra and Diedra's husband to Diedra's employer—could be read as threatening nonphysical harm to Diedra, as well as being intimidating….

The situation is different as to the children; here, we agree with Justina that there was insufficient evidence [to justify the no-contact order as to the children]. The record on appeal contains almost nothing regarding the children. Diedra's petition and affidavit for a domestic abuse protection order stated only that she removed Justina from the list of persons authorized to pick up the children from daycare because she was "worried/scared what [Justina] may do to them as [she does not] know what [Justina's] capable of." The petition and affidavit did not specifically articulate any basis for those concerns.

Nor did Diedra's testimony at the show cause hearing note any specific concerns about the children beyond Justina's threat to assert rights to the children based on her polyamorous relationship with Diedra and Diedra's husband. Justina, in contrast, testified that she had a close relationship with the children, was effectively their aunt and nanny, and never harmed or threatened them. Justina's testimony here was uncontroverted, even if the district court found Justina to be generally less credible than Diedra. This evidence would not cause a reasonable person to be seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated….

Comments

[John F. Carr]

Unusual standard of review, or unusual way of describing it: "The grant or denial of a protection order is reviewed de novo on the record. In such de novo review, an appellate court reaches conclusions independent of the factual findings of the trial court. However, where the credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court consid- ers and may give weight to the circumstances that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another."

As for the order itself, it is unclear to me if it prevents Justina from outing Deidra to her employer. That was evidence of bad conduct, but it is not the sort of thing the statutory language contemplates being prohibited.

Finally, I wonder, what is the female equivalent of "don't stick your dick in crazy"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was reading this in terms of MA 209A and amazed.

[Zarniwoop]

Finally, I wonder, what is the female equivalent of “don’t stick your dick in crazy”?

It's also "don't put your dick in crazy", but the "dick" is more metaphorical.

I know multiple women who are fond of the phrase.

[Frank Drackman]

One of my favorite lines from my favorite Oliver Stoned movie, "The Doors"
Pamela Courson: [about Patricia] You actually put your dick in this woman?
Jim Morrison: Well I... sometimes, yeah.

Frank "Mother, ....."

[Purple Martin]

“Hey kids, look what’s for dinner—boiled bunny!”

[Currentsitguy]

I prefer it when my soap operas confine themselves to the small screen.

[Bob from Ohio]

Classic Iraq/Iran War situation.

[Krychek_2]

A Muslim who lives in the Middle East once told me that the only Muslims who actually practice polygamy are the ones who can afford a separate house for each wife, because any attempt to put them under the same roof would be just like Iraq.

[Frank Drackman]

Like in Chinese the character for "Peace" depicts a House with one woman, the character for "War" is a House with two women, and Armageddon was my house with 2 teenage daughters and their mom.

Frank

[Bubba Jones]

Am I reading this correctly? Court affirms the domestic abuse protective order for Diedra but not for her children?

Sure. You fear for your own safety and well being but we don’t see why you are so worried about what she would do to your kids?

[SykesFive]

You've read it correctly.

I don't have a huge breadth of family law experience, but based on what I do know this is pretty common. I have found that courts don't assume a threat against another adult is necessarily a threat against the children. I've also seen some skepticism of claims the other adult is going to harm the children since this may be a way to get an advantage in custody.

E.g., Dad accuses Mom of cheating, threatens her, and hurts her. Mom flees the house and goes to her own family or a shelter. Mom seeks protection from abuse order for herself and Kids. "I don't know what he'd do to them and you see how violent he gets." Dad admits he threatened Mom and "maybe roughed her up a little when I was mad" but swears up and down he'd never hurt Kids, "my own flesh and blood." Adversarial hearing establishes no proof Dad ever threatened or hurt Kids.

In my experience judges dealing with the PFA petition will be very wary of entering the order as requested because it will cut Dad off from Kids. They will set up some shared custody arrangement and refer to some other program for a definitive solution.

[Rossami]

Well, the court affirmed the protective order and I suppose it fits within their "domestic abuse" category even though no actual domestic abuse was ever alleged. The protective order for Diedra is in response to actual harassing calls and threats to contact her employer.

No such threats or adverse actions were even alleged to have been made against the children. The most the article describes is that Diedra "removed Justina from the list of persons authorized to pick up the children from daycare". As the mom, Diedra has the right to do that to Justina or anyone else. But she does not have an automatic right to other restrictions just on her say-so. She has to provide evidence that Justina actually is a threat to the children - and she failed to do so.

[Bubba Jones]

Absent a general prohibition against calling people’s employers, I don’t see the reason to grant special protection in this case against a factual disclosure.

[John F. Carr]

No dicks in this case, crazy woman vs. possibly sane woman ex.