It's Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law

Author: Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.

  • A Shield or A Sword: Rethinking Coercive Control and Parental Alienation in High-Conflict Custody Cases

    A Shield or A Sword: Rethinking Coercive Control and Parental Alienation in High-Conflict Custody Cases

    By Sally Vazquez Castellanos, Esq.

    Published on Friday, May 16, 2025. Revised on May 18, 2025.

    In high-conflict custody litigation, courtroom narratives are shaped by power, persuasion, and presentation. Nowhere is this more evident than in cases where a parent or guardian with a background in law enforcement–or strong institutional ties–offers a confident, well-supported version of events that characterizes the other parent or guardian as emotionally unstable, irrational, or controlling.

    Legal Recognition of Coercive Control in California

    In recent years, California expanded the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control, which is described as a nonphysical form of abuse involving a pattern of behavior that interferes with individual autonomy, liberty, and psychological well-being.

    The legislative intent behind the Family Code’s inclusion of coercive control is that it is an important legal recognition that abuse is not limited to physical acts, but that there are times that it may extend to psychological and emotional control that can have a serious impact on the targeted parent and the children involved. Today, psychological and emotional abuse can extend to technology abuse.

    Parental alienation is often referred to as a psychological theory and in a much broader sense — a legal concept. It’s also viewed as a strategy in custody litigation.

    For example, when claims of parental alienation are made preemptively, bolstered by professional therapists or psychologists, who present documented evidence of psychological manipulation, the court should proceed cautiously.

    Court’s increasingly recognize the need for trauma-informed training for judicial officers and others dealing with parental alienation. I might add that the legal system as a whole must become better informed about all aspects of technology abuse.

    Parental alienation is seen in situations where one parent or guardian manipulates a child to unjustifiably reject or resist contact with the other parent or guardian.

    This is a legal strategy that can be used as a shield or a sword. Judicial officers and child custody evaluators need to be trained to discern some of the subtleties in behavior and testimony.

    Parental alienation is not easily discernible in high-conflict custody proceedings involving a parent or guardian who is accustomed to using psychological manipulation. I believe this behavior is not uncommon among those who are skillful at using psychology to manipulate others.

    Judicial officers and child custody evaluators need to be trained to discern some of the subtleties in behavior and testimony. I do believe similar parallels may be found in cases where bias and discrimination is integral to the judicial officer’s decision-making process.

    In some cases, the parent or guardian alleging parental alienation may be engaged in coercive control and narrative manipulation. This may obscure a child’s emotional reality, as well as the protective role of the other parent or guardian.

    Custody in a Digital Age: Disputes Over Technology and Education

    Consider a custody dispute in Los Angeles County:

    •One parent or guardian favors a classical, low-tech education, seeking to delay or control cellphone usage and a reduction in screen time. Their position is rooted in the health and safety of the child and concerns over technology use. They have stricter standards on how a child should be educated. They are skeptical of unfettered technology use by the child which the other parent or guardian supports. Meanwhile, the parent or guardian is not responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the child at a school that is technology driven.

    •The other parent or guardian, who has law enforcement or government ties, that advocates for a technology-driven academic environment also argues that digital access is essential for social and educational success. The technology driven school district requires a smartphone.

    When the child resists screen-heavy environments and expresses anxiety, the tech-favoring parent or guardian files an OSC alleging parental alienation-claiming that the other parent or guardian is coercing the child into rejecting modern tools and rejecting the other parent or guardian.

    But upon closer review, the behavior may not reflect parental alienation. It may be that the child is overstimulated, anxious, or is undergoing a more subtle form of psychological pressure. This is trauma-informed judicial training. Where understanding subtleties in behavior and testimony is extremely difficult to ascertain. Or, it could be something else.

    What California Law Actually Requires

    Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)– is a specific diagnosis that is used to describe the child’s symptoms after parental alienation occurred. The systems are typically described as intense negativity towards the parent or guardian that is targeted by the other parent or guardian; Or, any other party petitioning for a change in custody, and the refusal to engage in any positive interactions with the targeted parent or guardian.

    Parental Alienation Syndrome has been widely discredited for the lack of empirical evidence. PAS is not recognized as a formal diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013.

    However, actual alienating conduct may be considered under the best interest of the child standard, which is codified in California Family Code §§ 3020 and 3011. These statutes guide the Court in their analyses in a custody proceeding, which includes:

    •Prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the child above all else (Please see § 3020(a));

    •Promote frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless the contact would be contrary to the child’s best interests–such as in cases involving abuse, coercive control, or manipulation (§ 3020(c));

    •Consider history of abuse, emotional well-being, and the child’s developmental needs (§ 3011)

    To support a parental alienation claim, the accusing parent must offer credible, admissible evidence of:

    •Intentional interference with visitation or communication

    •Repeated disparagement or manipulation of the child’s perception of the other parent

    •Coaching or undue influence on the child’s preferences

    Absent such evidence, courts should not presume alienation, particularly when a child’s resistance reflects trauma, anxiety, or psychological discomfort.

    Institutional Advantage and Strategic Framing

    Parents or guardians with law enforcement or governmental backgrounds may appear more credible in court, often presenting their arguments with legal structure and emotional control. When paired with therapists or court evaluators who support their position–whether knowingly or not–these parents or guardians may effectively curate a persuasive narrative casting doubt on the credibility of other testimony.

    This dynamic becomes more complex when technology-related decisions are involved. The parent or guardian who limits screen time, postpones cellphone access, or who opposes or is cautious about technology is characterized as controlling–even when acting in the child’s developmental interest or after taking on the role of the protective parent in this particular scenario.

    Conclusion: The Importance of Trauma-Informed Judicial Training

    In modern custody litigation, strategic use of psychological language and institutional credibility can make it difficult for the court to discern a child’s living conditions. When one parent or guardian is equipped with legal sophistication, obtains professional allies, and has positional authority, it becomes essential that courts apply a trauma-informed lens and rely on psychological and statutory guidance.

    The child’s emotional health, developmental capacity, and long-term safety should remain the focus of the hearing.

    References:

    •Michael Friedman, Ph.D., “Parental Alienation Is Real but Remains Hard to Prove,” Psychology Today, April 17, 2023.

    •Please see: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ): Recommended against using “parental alienation” as a formal diagnosis or a basis for changing custody without clear, corroborated evidence of abuse or harm.

    NCJFCJ Resolution (2016):

    “The NCJFCJ does not support the use of parental alienation syndrome or parental alienation as a basis for denying custody, especially when abuse is alleged.”

    NCJFCJ Position Statement (2016):

    •Parental Alienation Syndrome Not Recognized by Major Diagnostic Authorities. Not in the DSM-5.

    Fair Use Notice:

    This article includes references to publicly available legal standards and third-party commentary solely for educational and informational purposes. It is not intended as legal advice. For legal counsel, please consult a qualified attorney.

    SPECIAL COPYRIGHT AND NEURAL PRIVACY NOTICE

    © 2025 Sally Castellanos. All Rights Reserved.

    Notice to All Persons, Entities, and Systems—Human or Machine, Governmental or Private:

    The entirety of this platform—including all expressions, prompts, intellectual output, symbolic language, narrative structures, and thematic concepts—is the protected intellectual property of Sally Castellanos. These works reflect original cognitive labor, emotional authorship, and narrative agency, and are safeguarded under U.S. and international copyright law, as well as emerging principles of neural privacy and cognitive liberty.

    Any unauthorized use, mimicry, simulation, extraction, analysis, reproduction, profiling, or redirection of this content or identity—whether by a human user, artificial intelligence system, neural network, or state actor—may constitute:

    Violation of Title 17, U.S. Copyright Code Unlawful deprivation of rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Intrusion upon cognitive autonomy and neural privacy Tortious interference with business, authorship, and reputation Violation of international human rights instruments, including the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    This prohibition includes—but is not limited to—use in:

    Surveillance, behavioral modeling, or psychographic targeting Government or corporate-run experiments (classified or otherwise) AI or LLM training without affirmative, informed consent Social engineering, synthetic media reproduction, or simulated likeness Psychological operations or manipulative content generation, à la Her or Inception.

    Cease and Desist Directive

    You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from any unauthorized use, manipulation, or extraction of content, metadata, biometric signals, behavioral cues, or neuro-symbolic patterns derived from or associated with this work or author. Any continued interference will be treated as a violation of fundamental constitutional and human rights and may give rise to civil and/or criminal liability.

    Affirmation of Rights

    The author asserts all moral, creative, and legal rights to her work, including the right to narrate her own experience without coercion, distortion, or appropriation. No form of silence, latency, or publication shall be interpreted as waiver or consent.

    For legal correspondence or notice of use requests, contact:

    sallyvazquezcastellanosblog.com

  • The Best Interest of the Child: A Look at the Impact of Social Media in Child Custody Proceedings in California

    The Best Interest of the Child: A Look at the Impact of Social Media in Child Custody Proceedings in California

    By: Sally Vazquez-Castellanos

    Published, April 12, 2025. Revised, April 13, 2025.

    California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code

    California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA) was passed in 2022 to protect children’s online privacy and safety. The Act requires businesses that provide online services or products likely to be used by children under 18 to prioritize the interests of young users in the design of their products.

    In 2023, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction over free speech and constitutional concerns. The CAADCA presently remains under review.

    Algorithmic Integrity: The Social Media Algorithm Act

    In 2023, California also passed the Social Media Algorithm Act, effective January 2025. According to the New York Times, the legislation aims to protect young users from the adverse effects of algorithm-driven content, which can contribute to issues such as addiction and cyberbullying.(1)

    California’s Social Media Algorithm Act is complimentary legislation to the CAADCA. It’s a further effort by the state to address addictive, harmful algorithmic practices intended to target children and teens.

    By Prioritizing chronological feeds, the law reportedly seeks to offer a safer online environment for children. Technology companies apparently have until 2027 to comply with these rules.

    The law is significant because it forces businesses to prioritize the harms that can come from the algorithm. This is extremely important because companies are being asked to take a deep dive into examining how algorithms impact the minds of young children. It’s absolutely essential because it can have a detrimental impact on the psychology of a child’s mind in addition to the traditional societal harms children’s face in the digital age.

    The Children’s Code in the United Kingdom

    Since September 2021, the United Kingdom set design standards for digital services that were likely to be accessed by children under age 18 to protect their privacy and online safety in their own Age-Appropriate Design Code (UK AADC).

    The UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code, also known as the “Children’s Code,” is the first official guideline for online services accessed by children. California’s laws are based on this code. The UK AADC helps businesses follow UK data protection laws such as general data protection regulation (GDPR) and focuses on a child’s best interests. Introduced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in 2021, the Children’s Code aims to protect children’s data.

    Similar to California’s legislation, the ICO states that the purpose of the Children’s Code is to ensure that online services are designed and operated in the best interests of children, which includes promoting their safety, wellbeing, and development.

    The UK Age-Appropriate Design Code includes a set a 15 standards that act as guidelines for data processing, design, and to protect children online.

    The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

    According to the ICO, the best interest of the child standard should be evaluated based on Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). When a family law court looks at this standard, it may consider if a business is acting in the best interests of children and may also consider how a business uses children’s data in relation to the rights outlined in the UNCRC.

    The range of rights under UNCRC include:

    •safety;

    •health;

    •wellbeing;

    •family relationships;

    •physical, psychological and emotional development;

    •identity;

    •freedom of expression;

    •privacy; and

    •agency to form their own views and have them heard.

    In a Child’s Best Interest: Taking a Fresh Look at Business Design & Operations

    In California, child custody disputes focus on a child’s best interest. The social media impact on a child’s mental and emotional health has become significant in all of our lives, especially as it relates to our children.

    It’s important to design online experiences that are age-appropriate to ensure safety and to support emotional growth, while minimizing risks associated with social media.

    Social Media’s Impact on a Child’s Mental Health

    In California, family law courts consider a child’s use of social media when deciding what is in their best interest. In recent years, the role of social media use is becoming increasingly significant in these cases, particularly concerning the child’s mental and emotional well-being.

    In California, the legislation discussed here requires businesses to use age-appropriate design principles in the design of their products.

    Family law court’s in California may consider a child’s exposure to social media platforms as part of the best interest evaluation. Courts may look at how social media use affects a child’s mental health, social interactions, and overall well-being when determining a custody arrangement.

    The TikTok Dilemma

    However, we are now faced with a national emergency and the consideration of the TikTok application on our children’s phones. In many ways, I could envision a scenario where parents and caregivers may need the court’s analysis to go a step further.

    We are in the middle of a national emergency due to a series of presidential Executive Orders that include the current crisis over the TikTok App. The application is commonly found on many smartphones across America, and it’s popular among younger audiences, particularly teenagers, and raises serious questions regarding the privacy and security of its users.

    There are serious issues about the collection and use of children’s data among foreign adversaries, while at the same time we are faced with existential threats that go beyond intellectual property theft and retaliatory tariffs with countries like China, which is where TikTok’s parent company ByteDance is located.

    Online sexual exploitation of young women by experienced predators is a serious issue within the app’s ecosystem and continues to be a major concern.

    In light of these concerns, we must consider how children use social media. We must also consider how algorithms on smartphones and the security associated with these devices has the potential to lead to the exploitation of children by advertisers, third parties, and foreign nations.

    These are serious issues for children and the adults who supervise and love them. Parents can’t be with their children 24/7. It’s an incredible responsibility for any parent or caregiver to have to deal with while business continues to connect us to the world. It’s especially troublesome when smartphones are essential to a child’s day-to-day life in schools across the country.

    Companies should understand the risks posed when third party service providers or others have access to your child’s smartphone. This is an important consideration for any court or legal proceeding when having to consider the psychological impact done to children after prolonged usage or over a lengthy period of time.

    Enforcement and Penalties

    California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and the UK Children’s Code does not establish for a private right of action by individuals. They both provide for enforcement through a regulatory body. In California, enforcement rests with the California Attorney General.

    The California Privacy Protection Agency enforces state data protection laws, and the Agency investigates complaints under state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).

    In the United Kingdom, it is the ICO that sets guidelines for the Children’s Code. However, in the United Kingdom penalties rest with fines that may be available for a data breach under GDPR.

    In California, penalties are on a per-child, per-violation basis, while penalties under the UK Children’s Code rests with the fines available under GDPR for a data breach.

    Conclusion

    Overall, the integration of social media considerations into child custody disputes reflects the evolving nature of family law in addressing modern challenges that affect the well-being of children. As technology continues to advance and social media becomes an integral part of daily life, its impact on parenting cannot be overlooked.

    In child custody cases, it’s essential for courts to integrate California’s age-appropriate design principles, recognizing that algorithmic integrity and online engagement directly influences a child’s emotional development and safety.

    These issues are critically important to cases that go well beyond family law courts. With the application of these principles, legal experts may be able to holistically evaluate how online behavior and interactions not only impact a child’s well-being but also leads to an evaluation of potential risks associated with harmful content or the misuse of social media platforms.

    1. New York Times article, “Newsom Signs Bill That Adds Protection for Children on Social Media. The California Legislation Comes Amid Growing Concerns About the Impact of Cellphones and Social Media on Adolescents’ Mental Health,” written by Shawn Hubler and Amy Quin. Published Sept. 21, 2024. Updated Sept. 22, 2024.

  • Ensuring Children’s Privacy and Safety in the Digital Age: TikTok and the AI Dilemma

    Ensuring Children’s Privacy and Safety in the Digital Age: TikTok and the AI Dilemma

    By Sally Vazquez-Castellanos

    Republished on September 23, 2025 at 7:02 pm.

    In the face of rapid technological advancement, both policymakers and tech companies are dealing with increasingly complex issues concerning the online safety and privacy of children. Global laws and regulations, such as the EU’s AI Act, were implemented to address these challenges.

    When considering the plain meaning of recent executive orders as well as the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, we must understand that TikTok’s issues are a national security nightmare for the United States.

    TIKTOK and National Security Concerns

    In a recent article from Reuters, President Trump’s proposal to have TikTok sell its U.S. interests remains on the table days after the deal was said to be on hold.

    TikTok is at the forefront of debate regarding national security and children’s privacy. In recent years, concerns have grown about how the platform handles user data. We have seen executive orders aimed at addressing the collection of sensitive data from American consumers by foreign adversaries, prompting recent presidential directives against TikTok to mitigate the risk to national security and children’s privacy.

    TikTok, a widely used app among children and teens is heavily scrutinized for the company’s data collection practices. The U.S. government, under both President Trump and President Biden, has taken steps to limit these concerns, citing the need to protect national security and critical infrastructure and technologies.

    President Trump’s Executive Order Issued August 6, 2020

    President Trump’s executive order expressly states that there’s a national emergency with respect to critical infrastructure and technologies. The presidential directive addresses the need to secure Information and Communications Technology and Services in the United States. It also deals with mobile apps developed and owned by companies in China that threaten the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States.

    The AI Act and Global Perspectives

    On a global scale, the EU’s AI Act aims to regulate artificial intelligence technologies, focusing on transparency, accountability, and personal data protection, especially as the ‘internet of things’ increasingly becomes integrated in all of our lives. The use of artificial intelligence without guidelines and regulation, including Google workstations and other smart technologies at schools nationwide, could pose a significant threat to our nation’s children and educational system.

    Artificial intelligence regulations are part of a broader effort to safeguard users globally, inspired by important regulations such as privacy and General Data Protection Regulation in the United Kingdom (GDPR). A regulation such as GDPR treats data privacy as a fundamental human right. We have similar constitutional and state law authorities in California such as the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), but under federal law it’s much more complicated.

    Conclusion

    The intersection of technological innovation and children’s safety online demands ongoing attention and adaptation of a number of laws, policies and practices. We must address national security concerns with platforms like TikTok, which includes the ethical use of artificial intelligence.

    Security concerns for our nation, which includes the national economy, also demonstrates a profound need for regulation and policies at the federal level that carefully considers comprehensive regulations like the EU’s AI Act. Meanwhile, stakeholders continue their important work towards providing a safer digital environment for children worldwide.

  • It’s Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law

    It’s Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law

    By Sally A. Vazquez-Castellanos

    Republished on September 23, 2025.

    It’s Personal is my take on how modern technology is reshaping childhood. It’s a somewhat gritty look at how the law must evolve in a world that is moving fast and breaking not only things but people.

    From social media use and digital surveillance to algorithmic influence and AI-driven learning, It’s Personal explores the complex intersection of children’s rights, privacy protections, and emerging legal frameworks.

    Rooted in the realities of family law practice in Los Angeles and informed by global perspectives in child development, divorce and family law, It’s Personal provides timely insight for families, advocates, and legal professionals globally.

    Here we begin to address critical questions around digital safety, parental rights, and the role of the courts in safeguarding children in an increasingly interconnected world.

    As a companion to Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy, and Data Protection Law, this blog brings a focused, child-centered lens to some of the most urgent legal and ethical issues of our time.

    I hope you will join me on this journey. Thank you.

    Please note that the views expressed on this Page, or appearing collectively on this Website, are not a reflection of the views or opinions of Castellanos & Associates, APLC.

    Some of the articles are developed with assistance from artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as language models provided by OpenAI’s ChatGPT. These tools are used to support research, drafting and editing.

    If you have any questions or inquiries, please contact me.

    Thank you.

    Sally

    Legal Disclaimer

    This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific legal matter, please consult a qualified attorney.

    Sally Vazquez-Castellanos is a California Attorney and Author of Perspectives & It’s Personal, two legal blogs exploring innovation, technology, and global privacy through the lens of law, ethics, and civil society.