Triple trouble

from Deidra T. v. Justina R.The Nebraska Supreme Court decided Friday, in an opinion by Justice Jeffrey Funk:

Justina and Deidra met in 2015 and became “best friends”. Then, Justina, Diedra, and Diedra’s husband begin having sex. Justina and Deidra agree that they never considered themselves girlfriends, but they disagree on whether the relationship between Justina, Deidra, and Deidra’s husband is described as polyamorous.

On March 30, 2022, Diedra filed a petition and affidavit seeking a domestic abuse protective order against Justina on behalf of herself and her children. The petition alleges that Deidra ended and “completely severed” her sexual relationship with Justina in March 2021 and ceased contact with Justina on March 15, 2022. Diedra also alleged that Justina had previously threatened to commit suicide if they did not continue their sexual relationship. After Deidra ended that relationship and became “more obsessive”. Deidra also alleged that after losing contact with Justina, Justina began texting and calling her from various phone numbers, begging Deidra to talk to her, and threatening to commit suicide by revealing Deidra’s relationship with Deidra and Deidra’s husband to Deidra’s employer. gives According to Deidra, Justina sent him 150 or more messages a day.

Also, the petition alleges that Justina arrived at Deidra’s home on March 29, 2022 and refused to leave until police ordered her to leave. Deidra alleged that she showed police her phone from Justina in the last 24 hours, which contained 63 texts as well as missed calls. Deidra also alleged that Justina texted and called her 10 more times after she left Deidra’s home on March 29.

We agree with Justina that a certain number of texts or calls will take rev. does not constitute harassment under Stat. § 28-311.02. However, … records show Justina “threatening to out Deidra as a queer woman.” [Diedra’s] employer” and commit suicide if they cannot continue their sexual relationship… [Section] 28-311.02 not limited to threats of physical violence; It simply refers to conduct that “seriously … threatens.” Further, § 28-311.02 also covers conduct that is seriously intimidating 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, when viewed objectively, Justina’s statements—and in particular, her statements about disclosing to Deidra’s employer the details of her sexual relationship with Deidra and Deidra’s husband—could be read as threats of physical harm to Deidra, as well as intimidation….

The situation is different for children; Here, we agree with Justina that there was insufficient evidence [to justify the no-contact order as to the children]. The appellate record contains almost nothing about the children. Deidra’s petition and affidavit for a domestic abuse protective order state only that she removed Justina from the list of persons authorized to pick up children from daycare because she was “worried/scared [Justina] As can them [she does not] do you know [Justina’s] able to.” The petition and affidavit specifically did not disclose any basis for this concern.

Nor did Deidra’s testimony at the show cause hearing mention any specific concerns about the children beyond Justina’s threat to assert the children’s rights based on her polyamorous relationship with Deidra and Deidra’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. Here Justina’s testimony was not disputed, even if the district court found Justina less credible than Deidra. This evidence would not cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, threatened or intimidated…

The post Throuple Trouble appeared first on