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 dis­cus­sion 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 return­ing 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.

  • We must main­tain our homes so that we can open our doors with­out hes­i­ta­tion to any­one, includ­ing child pro­tec­tive ser­vices, at any moment with absolute­ly no qualms.
  • We need to live in kid-friend­ly places in decent school dis­tricts. We need to be on good terms with our neigh­bors and land­lords, and we need to estab­lish some sta­bil­i­ty. Mov­ing every year, or even more fre­quent­ly, does­n’t look good.
  • We need to abide by our state’s home­school­ing reg­u­la­tions if we homeschool.
  • We need to be involved in our chil­dren’s schools as vol­un­teers, PTA mem­bers, room mothers/fathers, etc. We need to stay in touch with our chil­dren’s teach­ers, attend­ing every par­ent con­fer­ence and the like. We need to stay abreast of what our kids are doing every school day and com­mu­ni­cate with their teach­ers imme­di­ate­ly regard­ing any concerns.
  • We need to send our kids to school in well-fit­ting, pre­sentable (clean, pressed, not torn/stained) cloth­ing, well-fed and rest­ed, every sin­gle day.
  • We need to pro­vide health care for our chil­dren, whether we have it for our­selves or not.
  • We need to arrange for good child­care, with no latchkey children.
  • Active involve­ment in a church always looks good. The Uni­tar­i­an Uni­ver­sal­ist Asso­ci­a­tion is fair­ly respectable, Uni­ty Church a lit­tle less so (in the Amer­i­can Bible Belt, at least).
  • Girl Scouts, 4H, Camp­fire — any of those groups are good for you and your kids to get involved with.
  • We can­not have revolv­ing doors in our, or even more so our chil­dren’s, lives. That means not hav­ing SOs or room­mates com­ing in and out of their lives fre­quent­ly. If your kids are get­ting to know a new per­son every few months, it looks very, very bad.
  • It should go with­out say­ing that our chil­dren should­n’t be exposed to our sex lives in any explic­it way. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, it has to be said. If you’re into kink, your kids should not encounter any kind of gear or lit­er­a­ture relat­ed to that.
  • Kids should not, in fact, ever encounter any sex­u­al­ly explic­it mate­r­i­al in their homes. The only excep­tion is age-appro­pri­ate edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als. If you have porn around, put it away in a place that isn’t acces­si­ble to your chil­dren and isn’t seen by vis­i­tors. I am sex-pos­i­tive, but I know don’t want to debate the lit­er­ary mer­its of erot­i­ca with a judge in fam­i­ly court someday.
  • Don’t do ille­gal drugs. I don’t give a fly­in’ flip about the eth­i­cal­i­ty of the cur­rent laws. Just don’t do them. Don’t allow any­one else to do them around your kids or on your prop­er­ty. Nev­er allow any­one to have them on your prop­er­ty. It’s stu­pid. If you want to keep your kids, stay clean.
  • Don’t drink alco­hol to excess, espe­cial­ly around your kids. Don’t allow oth­ers to drink heav­i­ly in your home or around your kids. Don’t social­ize with peo­ple who con­sid­er drink­ing to be a vital part of hav­ing fun. Don’t keep a lot of alco­hol in your home.

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 anymore.

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).

Am I speak­ing from a place of priv­i­lege? Yes, and I know it. How­ev­er, I’m also a dis­abled, fat, bisex­u­al woman who was a sin­gle par­ent in the Amer­i­can Bible Belt and who knows what it is to not have access to health­care and to live on very lit­tle mon­ey. Even when I could­n’t work I made sure that my daugh­ter had every­thing she needed.

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.

3 thoughts on “Revisiting the April Divilbiss Case: Alternative Lifestyles and Encounters with the State

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Pingback: 5 Reasons Why Polyamorous Families are Reluctant to Be on TV

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top