Revisiting the April Divilbiss Case: Alternative lifestyles and encounters with the state

Orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished on Live­Jour­nal on 7 April 2005.

A nice lady wrote to me recent­ly, pro­voked by my post about our DFCS expe­ri­ence. She wrote about it on her blog, too.

The Divil­biss case was a top­ic of con­stant dis­cussing in forums relat­ed to polyamory back in 1999. Lov­ing More mag­a­zine and oth­ers raised mon­ey to pay the family’s legal fees. The assump­tion was that the Divil­biss-Lit­trell home was the best place for lit­tle Alana.

Most news cov­er­age and 99.9% of the talk focused on polyamory. The judge said that the Divil­biss’ lifestyle was “depraved” and that he would not con­sid­er return Alana to their home unless one of April’s hus­bands moved out of the home.

The pater­nal grand­moth­er was paint­ed as a har­ri­dan who couldn’t have a child of her own, and cov­et­ed Alana.

The prob­lem I had with it was that nobody was real­ly talk­ing about the fam­i­ly. What were they like? Were they real­ly tak­ing good care of the child? I sus­pect­ed that there were oth­er issues involved.

The social work­ers who inves­ti­gat­ed the fam­i­ly sup­pos­ed­ly stat­ed that the family’s polyamorous lifestyle was not detri­men­tal to the child.

I nev­er heard a thing say­ing that the social work­ers stat­ed that the fam­i­ly was pro­vid­ing a good home for the child.

I don’t know how many of you have read Divil­biss’ own state­ment about end­ing the case, but you should.

Some have ques­tioned it, say­ing that it didn’t ring true com­pared to ear­li­er mes­sages from Divil­biss. Her lawyer, as I recall, ver­i­fied that it was from her.

Per­haps wis­dom is a grace that comes with age, along with the pow­er of obser­va­tion. For three years, I stood in stub­born denial that I could pro­vide the best life for my child com­pared to the life that was being offered by oth­ers. My daughter’s pater­nal grand­moth­er made every attempt pos­si­ble to shed some light on the facts that proved me wrong. I mis­took her efforts to be mali­cious, oppres­sive, and manip­u­la­tive. Even as I sat in a dark apart­ment with no elec­tric­i­ty, in sub-zero tem­per­a­tures heat­ing stolen baby for­mu­la over a can­dle flame, I thought that I could pro­vide bet­ter for my daugh­ter than she could. After three years of this denial, my child’s grand­moth­er used the only sure thing she had to help real­i­ty crash my lit­tle tea par­ty: The fact that alter­na­tive lifestyles are still frowned upon in court­rooms.

No util­i­ties. Stolen baby for­mu­la. No health care, accord­ing to oth­er parts of the state­ment. What Divil­biss described can­not be con­sid­ered a good envi­ron­ment for a child.

Why couldn’t three adults man­age to keep the util­i­ties on? Noth­ing was ever said about there being any dis­abil­i­ties that made the adults unable to work.

My point here is that the fam­i­ly wasn’t a good can­di­date for a test case. They were not pro­vid­ing a good, sta­ble home for their child by any first world country’s com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards.

The case should not be used as a yard­stick in gen­er­al, or a rea­son for poly fam­i­lies to be clos­et­ed.

What is rea­son­able for poly fam­i­lies, or pagan/queer/kinky/anything out­side the main­stream fam­i­lies, is to have stain­less steel lives. We need to do every­thing we can to make sure that we are blame­less in every respect, mod­el mem­bers of our com­mu­ni­ties.

That means sta­bil­i­ty, respectabil­i­ty, and involve­ment. A few points.

If you are wor­ried about cus­tody prob­lems because of your lifestyle, you need to go through that list and make sure you are doing those things.

Is it fair? No. Is it unrea­son­able or undoable? No. They’re all things that are good for any fam­i­ly, but if we are liv­ing alter­na­tive lifestyles we have to be extra care­ful.

The last thing is what has been called “fuck you mon­ey.” One impor­tant aspect of the Divil­biss case was that the grand­par­ents had mon­ey, and Divil­biss and her hus­bands didn’t.

You must be finan­cial­ly inde­pen­dent. If you are depend­ing on fam­i­ly or friends for mon­ey need­ed for basic life neces­si­ties, you are in a very bad posi­tion. You need to have a place to live in which you have a legal right to be, so that you can’t be evict­ed because your par­ents/friend­s/ex-boyfriend decid­ed they don’t want you there any more.

If you rely on hav­ing an auto­mo­bile to get to work or oth­er­wise do what you have to do, it needs to be yours and rea­son­ably reli­able.

Your job shouldn’t be con­tin­gent on your par­ents’ approval or some such, which is a major argu­ment against work­ing for a fam­i­ly busi­ness.

Estab­lish some sta­bil­i­ty in your work­ing life. Stick with a job rather than jump­ing around. Be the kind of employ­ee who is kept and pro­mot­ed — get to work on time, don’t miss any time if you can pos­si­bly avoid it, fol­low the rules, be pro­duc­tive, be proac­tive, etc. Don’t push your lifestyle in anyone’s face — it isn’t appro­pri­ate for any­one. I don’t care if oth­er peo­ple do it, that doesn’t jus­ti­fy it. I don’t think you should nec­es­sar­i­ly be clos­et­ed, but if you’re a queer/pagan/polyamorous per­son work­ing for a con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian orga­ni­za­tion, you’re prob­a­bly in the wrong place any­way.

Those are the barest basics. You need to have some sav­ings in case you lose your job. You need to be insured for all the nor­mal stuff (auto, homeowners/renters, life, dis­abil­i­ty if you can get the cov­er­age, lia­bil­i­ty if pos­si­ble).

Every hor­ror sto­ry I’ve ever encoun­tered about alter­na­tive lifestyle folks los­ing their chil­dren to the state involves the par­ents not doing one or more of these things. The fam­i­lies involved have usu­al­ly been finan­cial­ly depen­dent on peo­ple who don’t approve of their lifestyles. They haven’t pro­vid­ed sta­ble, clean homes for their kids. And so on, and so on.

Those whose encoun­ters with the state were more or less pain­less, includ­ing us, were fol­low­ing these guide­lines.

Don’t both­er talk­ing to me about the fair­ness of any of this. If you want to make con­struc­tive sug­ges­tions, I wel­come them.

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Torrey Brooks-Mauga
    Aug 25, 2017 @ 17:55:42

    The biggest prob­lem I have with this, is it is incred­i­bly white-cen­tric.

    Accord­ing to this check­list, dis­abled and POC shouldn’t even have kids, much less have kids and be pagan /poly/queer. Imag­ine what it’s like to be a pagan, QTWOC.….and poly.

    Our poly­cule is fre­quent­ly our only reli­able safe­ty net. Under the cur­rent admin­is­tra­tion, sav­ings have evap­o­rat­ed, food banks, food stamps, even get­ting med­ica­tions that are on the for­mu­la­ry for insur­ance is becom­ing a three ring cir­cus event. I believe we should all remem­ber Wan­da Sykes admon­ish­ment: “White peo­ple are watch­ing you”

    I don’t believe we should fall into the trap of per­pet­u­at­ing a host of isms (transan­tag­o­nism, ableism, clas­sism, racism, etc) with­in our poly com­mu­ni­ties. I’m sure that wasn’t the intent, and it is still how this reads.

    Reply

  2. Cyn
    Aug 25, 2017 @ 19:03:26

    I hon­est­ly don’t know what you find objec­tion­able in the arti­cle — it would be help­ful if you were more spe­cif­ic (although obvi­ous­ly you aren’t oblig­at­ed to give more detail). I cer­tain­ly don’t want to be white-cen­tric or transan­tag­o­nis­tic.

    I wrote this piece as a queer, dis­abled, pagan, poly par­ent liv­ing deep in the South. My part­ners and I were prac­tic­ing just as I wrote — and we sur­vived sev­er­al expe­ri­ences with local Depart­ments of Fam­i­ly and Children’s Ser­vices with cus­tody total­ly unchanged. Because of that, I don’t see any­thing in that list that isn’t per­fect­ly achiev­able for POC, pagan, LGBTQ+, or dis­abled peo­ple. Hard, yes. But doable.

    Reply

Leave a Reply