‘We're not monsters, we just made mistakes’

Polyamorous couple speak out following High Court reversal

When the way you love is different to the way the norm is set people are always scared.

Polyamorous father

The polyamorous couple at the centre of a legal dispute over the care of two children say they are not monsters, just human beings who have made mistakes.

A Family Court judge ruled that Carl and Judith Blake* psychologically abused their two young children, exposing them to sex and new partners in their polyamorous household.

But the High Court has now overturned that, saying the couple’s parenting may not be perfect but did not amount to abuse.

While the couple is feeling relieved and vindicated following the latest ruling, Carl Blake concedes they’ve been cavalier about the risk of exposing their children to sexual activity, and blas about introducing them to new partners.

“We’re not monsters. We’re human beings who make mistakes,” he told Open Justice in an exclusive interview. “Mistakes we’ve learned from, and they’re not intentional.”

Tinder date

Lucas’ father, Carl, and Valerie’s mother, Judith, had part-time care of the two step-siblings when the Family Court ordered them last year to stop exposing the children to sexual activity and their polyamorous lifestyle.

Alarms bells were raised when Valerie, then 9, started playing with her Barbie dolls in a sexualised way, while Lucas, then 4, showed distress and started daytime wetting.

In the ruling, released publicly earlier this month, Judge La-Verne King found the children had suffered psychological abuse under Carl and

Judith’s care. That was in part based on evidence that on one occasion in 2019 Judith watched on while Carl had sex with a Tinder date in their open lounge when the children were in bed.

The couple also took part in a sexually explicit online chat for more than seven hours while caring for Lucas when he was just under 3 years old, and had introduced the children to successive short-term partners despite having agreed not to.

‘Mudslinging’

The Family Court proceedings were extremely difficult because of the conflict between the adult parties that at times amounted to “slinging as much mud as you can and seeing what sticks”, Carl Blake said.

“The amount of things brought up when it had nothing to do with the children, just to create that persona of [sexual] delinquency,” he said.

The worst was being told they had abused the person they loved and would do anything for. “It was horrifying, really, really deeply hurting . . . when you know that was not the case.”

They appealed to the High Court, and in May Justice Sarah Katz ruled that the Family Court had erred in its finding.

The couple’s behaviour did not meet the threshold for abuse, and she had no doubt the children were “deeply loved” by their parents, Justice Katz said in the latest decision released late last week.

There was no evidence the children were directly exposed to any adult sexual activity, even though Carl and Judith “clearly ran a real risk of exposing [Valerie and Lucas] to such behaviour”, she said.

These were “legitimate concerns” and the judge upheld the Family Court’s other key findings and orders, saying Carl and Judith Blake had at times prioritised their sexual lifestyle over the children’s welfare and safety.

“They were cavalier about the risk of exposing [Valerie and Lucas] to the sexual activity that took place in the lounge of the family home that evening. The next day they deceived [the court-appointed psychologist] about what had taken place,” Justice Katz said.

They also took a “somewhat blas” approach to introducing new partners, calling one of them “Mummy’s girlfriend”.

If these behaviours continued the children faced a clear risk of suffering psychological harm: for instance, if they were to continue sexual activity with other adults in the lounge when the children were home, it was inevitable they would eventually be exposed to it, the judge said.

Polyamory ‘not inherently harmful’

The High Court ruling was a relief to the Blakes, who admit they made mistakes and were now a lot more intentional about mitigating the risks of sexual activity around Lucas and Valerie.

Judith told the court they have been “purely monogamous” around all their children since at least January 2020. They were also taking “decisive steps” to ensure the children would not be accidentally exposed to sex in their home.

However, that wasn’t enough for Carl and Judith Blake’s ex-partners, who told Open Justice they remain “very concerned” about their children’s safety. In separate statements sent through their lawyers, Valerie’s father said he was disappointed in the High Court decision while Lucas’ mother said in her view the outcome was not child-focused.

Justice Katz said the Blakes were entitled to their polyamorous lifestyle with other consenting adults.

“The concerns that arise in this case are not with polyamory generally, but with the particular manner in which [they] have recently chosen to conduct their sexual lives,” she said.

Polyamory was still a “relatively unusual family configuration” but the court had no evidence that being raised in a polyamorous environment was inherently harmful to children’s emotional development.

Limited research on polyamory identified the key risk to children’s emotional wellbeing as the loss of a loved caregiver. But “this risk is inherent in any form of adult relationship, whether it be monogamous or nonmonogamous; hetero-normal or homosexual; polyamorous; or otherwise,” the decision read.

Children in polyamorous households also risk facing discrimination, again a risk that applies to all family structures that are not hetero-normal.

Persecuted for the way you love

Carl Blake believes there are around 2000 people in New Zealand’s polyamory community.

“They haven’t been painted with the brush of wrong because I made a mistake. For that I’m grateful.”

He has felt persecuted during the court battles, and again when the news about the first decision broke last week. In the days that followed, the couple were flooded by negative comments, some calling them groomers.

“When the way you love is different to the way the norm is set people are always scared,” he said. “And, when you’re scared of something you’d much rather attack it than explore it and try to understand it. That’s unfortunately the way humans are wired.”

He said he needed to set the record straight, but speaking up meant putting themselves and their mistakes out there.

* All names have been changed to protect the identities of everyone involved in the case.