As I often do when something troubles me these days, I open a dialogue with ChatGPT…
The following was taken from a previously published conversation with my ChatGPTabout trauma-informed practice in the legal profession and its related systems.
Please keep in mind that I have staunchly advocated for the recognition of subtle harms that are found in algorithms and targeted ads often displayed to children and vulnerable adults in the digital age.
It really can be as simple (or as complicated) as understanding just how difficult it may be for a child with a complexion problem to have to walk up to store personnel at CVS to ask for a tube of Clearasil. If you think that’s funny, try living life as a child who is impoverished or challenged in some way, then perhaps you might understand why this is a crisis that leaves some children vulnerable to being influenced by the wrong people. Sadly, many of these kids are bombarded with all kinds of messaging on their smartphones, which may include nasty behavior from individuals who abuse the privilege of being on social media platforms.
When we consider bias, racism, sexism, discriminatory and disparate treatment and practices institutionalized in American systems, the legal system as a whole is confronting how to deal with these societal harms that are increasingly becoming much more subtle in an age of technological dominance. I do think it’s important to note that bad people exist everywhere, including our digital spaces.
Just as digital platforms can be misused to cause quiet but devastating reputational harm through implication, curated messaging, or indirect targeting, so too can harm within family systems occur through subtle forms of control, manipulation, and intimidation—often without immediate physical evidence.
In the context of family law and child custody and conservatorship proceedings, this form of abuse may be referred to as “coercive control”—a pattern of psychological, emotional, and sometimes economic manipulation used to dominate or isolate a partner or child. It is insidious precisely because it often evades the traditional markers of harm that courts are trained to recognize. When courts lack sufficient training in trauma-informed practices, child sexual abuse dynamics, and non-physical forms of abuse, the result is often the minimization or outright dismissal of credible concerns raised by protective parents.
The parallel is clear: when institutions are not adequately prepared to recognize subtle, systemic harm, they may unintentionally legitimize or perpetuate it. In the media space, this results in public targeting masked as content; in the courtroom, it may result in placing children with abusive parents or penalizing the protective parent for “alienation” rather than identifying the underlying abuse.
Judicial reform must include mandatory education for judges and court personnel on coercive control, trauma responses, and the complex dynamics of abuse—especially as they present in contested custody cases. Understanding that harm is not always loud, visible, or immediate is essential to ensuring that justice is truly protective, particularly for children and survivors.
Just as we must be vigilant in digital spaces against subtle but coordinated reputational harm, we must bring that same level of vigilance into our courts—to recognize that harm can be quiet, strategic, and deeply destructive. Training and reform are not optional; they are critical for the safety and well-being of the families our courts are entrusted to serve.
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.
About the Author
Sally Castellanos is a California attorney and the Author of It’s Personal and Perspectives, a legal blog exploring innovation, technology, and global privacy through the lens of law, ethics, and civil society.
Published on July 15, 2015. Revised on July 16, 2015.
Children’s Rights, Behavioral Profiling, and the Law
“What happens when an algorithm learns your trauma before you speak it aloud?”
“And what if it uses that knowledge—not to heal—but to shape, manipulate, harass, or punish you?”
Quote: Chat GPT
In 2024, the ACLU filed a harrowing civil rights complaint detailing the abuse of a Spanish-speaking migrant mother—pseudonymously referred to as Ana—held in solitary confinement for weeks at a Florida ICE detention facility. A survivor of trafficking and domestic violence, Ana’s story reveals not only systemic failures in our immigration system, but also how trauma can be misunderstood, exploited, or even digitally profiled by the very systems that surround us in our private lives.
Now consider another Ana—the fictional “Anna Delvey” of Netflix’s Inventing Anna—a dramatized grifter portrayed as cunning, glamorous, and psychologically manipulative. What unites these two women isn’t criminality or deception—it’s the machinery behind them: psychological manipulation, profiling, and the dangerous power of misread narratives.
In this article, we explore how streaming platforms like Netflix, when combined with automated profiling tools used by law enforcement or government agencies, can function as vehicles for psychological grooming, behavioral targeting, and even family separation.
We ask: what does your “feed” say about you? And how might these digital breadcrumbs be used—especially against women and children in moments of legal, emotional, or immigration vulnerability?
Inventing Ana: Streaming, Psychological Manipulation, and Storytelling as a Weapon
Netflix’s Inventing Anna is more than a TV drama—it is an algorithmically optimized vehicle designed to hold attention, provoke emotional reaction, and amplify morally ambiguous narratives. But for viewers like Ana—individuals navigating real trauma—these dramatizations can blur into indoctrination.
Netflix’s recommendation engine uses machine learning (ML) to:
Track emotional patterns through binge behavior.
Infer psychological states (e.g., depression, isolation).
Build predictive profiles for personalized content delivery.
This becomes especially troubling when:
Trauma survivors, minors, migrants or other vulnerable individuals rely on streaming platforms as emotional lifelines. The content reinforces distress, manipulates emotional states, or echoes lived abuse. Law enforcement or third parties gain access to these profiles via subpoenas, data brokers, or government contracts.
What may begin as entertainment, ends in exposure and objectification.
Profiling Children, Grooming, and Vulnerability
Children are particularly susceptible to algorithmic manipulation.
Recommendation loops can push violent, sexualized, or identity-influencing content. COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) only protects children under 13, with limited enforcement. Netflix, while not designed for children without explicit parental controls, collects usage data even under child profiles.
Psychological grooming—typically understood in the context of abusers gaining a child’s trust—can now be digitized.
Platforms “learn” a child’s fears, interests, and emotional triggers. Recommendations can nudge behavior over time—toward specific identities, beliefs, or emotional responses. In immigration or custody proceedings, this data can become evidence of “instability,” “obsession,” “unfitness” or “unsuitability,” especially for vulnerable or non-English-speaking parents.
Legal Landscape: The Telecommunications and Streaming Privacy Gap
Despite the profound implications, federal and state laws have not kept pace:
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) prohibits unauthorized disclosure of viewing history, but was drafted in 1988—long before algorithmic profiling or streaming dominance.
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) provide stronger consumer control, allowing Californians to access, delete, or limit the use of their viewing data.
Cable Communications Act and Telecommunications Act do not fully cover streaming services operating over the internet.
Yet, these gaps matter. For Ana—or any immigrant or vulnerable mother—watching trauma-themed content on Netflix during a custody proceeding might silently build a profile that shapes how she is treated, judged, or even punished.
The next article we will try to explore:
How attorneys can protect clients’ digital identities in family and immigration proceedings.
A sample feed profile for “Ana”—as seen by Netflix.
Practical tools to request, review, or delete streaming data under California law.
Proposed reforms to the VPPA and CCPA that reflect the emerging dangers of algorithmic profiling.
If you need assistance, you should always attempt to engage with law enforcement and/or qualified legal counsel. I would strongly recommend that you learn how to report any unusual activity in a meaningful and credible way with any social media platform that you choose to engage with when choosing an online community.
Always remember that an online community is much like the community outside your front door. There may be consequences not only to your behavior but also as to any accusations you make. Engaging with counsel, counselors, and/or an advocate may be necessary.
Important Phone Numbers
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children – 1-800-843-5678.
The National Human Trafficking Hotline – 1-888-373-7888.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security – 1-866-347-2423.
SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE
The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (a/k/a Sally Vazquez and a/k/a Sally Castellanos). Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:
United States Law
Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction, ingestion, or simulation;
U.S. Constitution
First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship;
Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure;
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection;
Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights;
California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy;
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA);
Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices;
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control;
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.
International Law
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26;
Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation;
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data;
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation;
CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.
CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation
CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.
While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:
Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights; Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.
Application to Technology
Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:
Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.
CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.
FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):
Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.
ANTHROPIC LITIGATIONAND RESTRICTIONS
In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:
The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.
Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:
Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.
PROHIBITED USES
The following uses are expressly prohibited:
Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation;
Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction;
Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting;
Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations;
Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.
CEASE AND DESIST
You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:
All unauthorized use, simulation, ingestion, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.
Violations may result in:
Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.
AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS
Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:
The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.
No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer
The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.
This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation.
About the Author
Sally Castellanos is a California attorney and the Author of It’s Personal and Perspectives, a legal blog exploring innovation, technology, and global privacy through the lens of law, ethics, and civil society.
Published on July 15, 2025. Revised on July 16, 2025.
This continues my series of articles discussing fictional “Ana,”inspired by real events surrounding the detention of a real life Ana described in court documents found on the ACLU’s website. It is another disturbing account of a woman horribly abused. This time it’s in a Florida detention facility.
Let’s imagine Ana—exhausted, isolated, awaiting legal clarity—logs into her Netflix account. Her recommended queue might include:
Maid — A drama about a domestic violence survivor struggling through the U.S. welfare system.
Unbelievable — A miniseries dramatizing the failures of institutions to believe female survivors of trauma.
Inventing Anna — A series glamorizing manipulation, identity fraud, and psychological deception.
American Horror Story — Often triggering content, including violence, sexual trauma, and psychological experimentation.
From an algorithm’s perspective, these recommendations aren’t malicious—they’re the result of mathematical optimization to keep a user engaged. But to a government agent, custody evaluator, or court official with access to Ana’s digital record, a binge history of trauma-driven dramas might be framed as instability, paranoia, or obsession with abuse—especially in cases where the viewer is a non-English-speaking immigrant or trauma survivor.
Such profiling—consciously or not—can contribute to negative credibility assumptions, reinforce racialized or gendered bias, or cast aspersions on parental fitness.
Children, Family Courts, and Algorithmic Misuse
In California family law proceedings, streaming activity is rarely introduced as formal evidence. But we are entering a legal era where:
Parenting apps, screen time reports, and digital behavior logs are used in custody disputes. A child’s media consumption may be interpreted by evaluators, social workers, or opposing counsel as reflecting the emotional tone of the home.
Algorithmic “learning” of a child’s fears or emotional triggers could be exploited by bad actors, school districts, or even tech platforms.
This is especially relevant in communities where language access is limited, trust in institutions is low, and immigration status creates heightened risk of surveillance, psychological manipulation or profiling, automated profiling, or family separation.
Imagine a child’s profile is linked to a parent’s adult account. Autoplay delivers distressing content. Or worse—recommendations start nudging the child toward gender identity exploration, violence normalization, or grooming-adjacent narratives.
In a digital realm of very smart people who work hard each day on increasing engagement, these executives are learning that the line between algorithmic suggestion and psychological manipulation blurs just as quickly as breaking things to maximize profit.
Legal Tools and Advocacy: What Can Be Done?
✅ California Protections
CCPA & CPRA give Californians the right to:
Access: Request a full report of data collected by platforms like Netflix.
Delete: Demand erasure of stored viewing and recommendation history.
Limit: Opt out of behavioral profiling or sharing with third parties.
Family law and immigration attorneys can use these rights strategically—to:
Shield trauma survivors from harmful digital mischaracterization.
File protective orders or requests to suppress digital evidence gathered without consent.
Train clients on account segmentation, parental controls, and data minimization.
📺 VPPA (Video Privacy Protection Act)
While historic, the VPPA prohibits disclosure of personally identifiable viewing information. Attorneys should consider civil remedies when streaming data is unlawfully disclosed or repurposed during custody battles or immigration proceedings. Advocacy is urgently needed to modernize the statute for the streaming era.
📡 Gaps in Federal Law
The Telecommunications Act and Cable Communications Act are relics in a post-cable world. Platforms operating over broadband fall outside traditional regulatory regimes, leaving consumers and children exposed. Legislative reform must recognize the algorithm as both a marketing tool and a potential weapon of psychological coercion.
For Attorneys: A Preventive Guide
🔐 Digital Hygiene for Clients
Separate profiles for parents and children.
Turn off autoplay and algorithmic recommendations where possible.
Download your data—review what’s been collected.
Audit device history—many smart TVs and phones retain app logs.
📄 Legal Language to Include
“Petitioner reserves the right to challenge any digital media use or recommendation pattern as irrelevant, algorithmically driven, and not reflective of mental state, fitness, or parenting capacity.”
“Streaming data is protected under California Civil Code § 1799.3 and the Video Privacy Protection Act, and may not be introduced or used in legal proceedings absent proper notice and consent.”
Toward Reform: What Inventing Ana Teaches Us
The lesson of Inventing Anna was never just about deception. It was about the power of narrative, the force of charisma, and how society rewards performance over truth.
The lesson of Ana, the detained migrant mother, is more urgent: our institutions—from immigration courts to family law—routinely fail to recognize trauma, cultural difference, and the invisible harms of digital systems.
When entertainment feeds become evidence, and when algorithms groom instead of protect, we must rethink what privacy means—especially for women and children. Especially for Ana.
About the Author
California Attorney and Shareholder at Castellanos & Associates, APLC, Sally Castellanos writes at the intersection of law, children’s rights, digital technology, and family justice.
SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE
The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (a/k/a Sally Vazquez and a/k/a Sally Castellanos). Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:
United States Law
Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction, ingestion, or simulation;
U.S. Constitution
First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship;
Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure;
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection;
Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights;
California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy;
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA);
Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices;
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control;
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.
International Law
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26;
Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation;
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data;
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation;
CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.
CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation
CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.
While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:
Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights;
Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.
Application to Technology
Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:
Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.
CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.
FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):
Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.
ANTHROPIC LITIGATIONAND RESTRICTIONS
In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:
The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.
Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:
Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.
PROHIBITED USES
The following uses are expressly prohibited:
Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation;
Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction;
Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting;
Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations;
Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.
CEASE AND DESIST
You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:
All unauthorized use, simulation, ingestion, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.
Violations may result in:
Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.
AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS
Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:
The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.
No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer
The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.
This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation.
California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.
Published on July 15, 2025. Revised July 16, 2025.
This post is inspired by the ACLU’s Ana story. If you would like to learn more about Ana, I invite you to visit my earlier post published today on It’s Personal. For additional insight, please visit Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy and Data Protection Law, where I discuss emerging technologies that may provide insight for family law and immigration practitioners.
Please visit the ACLU online and learn more about all of the important stories impacting immigrants across the United States.
I have changed some important details to reflect California law. Please be sure to consult a qualified immigration or family law attorney if you need assistance.
Thank you for taking the time to learn about Ana.
Introduction
What begins as a family law dispute quickly spirals into a multi-systemic threat—especially for immigrant parents navigating high-conflict custody, relocation, and criminal allegations. In today’s climate of aggressive immigration enforcement, this convergence of state custody law, federal criminal scrutiny, and civil rights breakdown has never been more dangerous.
Ana’s Story: A Mother’s Flight for Safety, and the System That Turns Against Her
Ana, a Honduran national and mother of a U.S. citizen child, who resides in California and relocates to New York.
Ana is embroiled in a domestic violence-fueled custody battle that implicates jurisdiction in two states.
Resolving the jurisdiction issues means that judges from both states must determine which state has jurisdiction over the custody matter. Having judicial authority to determine initial custody orders will set the stage for any parent who is seeking to either maintain residency in California, or to seek residency in a new state. It gets even more complicated in the context of an international move away case. Ana’s goal would have been to establish initial custody orders in New York.
Given the fact that Ana is now in federal detention in New York, Ana’s concerns now involve an extremely serious immigration issue that invariably impacts her family law case and ultimately the custody of her child.
Ana faced allegations of emotional instability and coercive control from her ex-partner, who filed an emergency motion under California Penal Code § 278.5, there are obvious allegations involving parental kidnapping. Ana may have believed that she had the right to take her child to New York. From a judge’s point of view, removal is serious because it does involve allegations of parental kidnapping. It’s important to understand that in the Florida case, Ana simply took her child for Ice Cream. Unfortunately, Ana may have violated orders that require supervised visitations.
In both scenarios, Ana’s decision triggers criminal proceedings when the other parent contacts law enforcement. It’s that simple and extremely dangerous. While we would all like to believe parents (and family members or other interested parties) are operating with clean hands, that is usually not the case.
This signals the importance of trauma informed judicial training programs across the nation to recognize the subtleties in behavior.
Sadly, once Ana is arrested and detained she is placed in a situation that could escalate into something far worse. You must understand that if Ana is removed from the country without due process, Ana’s problems have turned into a nightmare.
So parents (and others) must recognize the seriousness of mere accusations. Unfortunately, what follows is worse than anticipated. Ana is arrested, transferred into ICE custody, and she is detained at a facility, where she purportedly endures sexual abuse, solitary confinement, denial of counsel, medical neglect, and retaliation. Ana is cut off from her child and barred from participating in custody proceedings, while her mental and physical health deteriorates.
What happens inside of a federal detention facility in the United States?
What would happen if Ana is removed from the United States?
How Jurisdiction Collapsed: UCCJEA and the Home State Crisis
We’ve discussed that Ana’s story is inspired from a published story from the ACLU. How many more Ana’s are out there?
This is really important for the Family Law bar to consider throughout the nation as the immigration crisis continues.
Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), California maintains exclusive jurisdiction over Ana’s custody matter. The purpose of the UCCJEA is to prevent “forum shopping” and ensure that custody disputes are resolved in the child’s home state—defined as the state where the child lived for the six months prior to the proceeding.
But in Ana’s case, her problems become much more complicated than the jurisdictional hearing that normally takes place and may further implicate parental kidnapping statutes. Ana’s story has now turned into a criminal matter and could potentially open the door for ICE. Her ex-partner filed conflicting petitions in New York, while law enforcement in California treated her movement as custodial interference. Without coordination between states—or recognition of the trauma she was fleeing—Ana’s legal protections under UCCJEA crumble. We are also dealing with a far worse situation for Ana who is in detention.
Criminalization and Deportation: When Family Law Triggers Federal Enforcement
California’s § 278.5 criminal custodial interference statute is often invoked when a parent violates a custody order. But for non-citizen parents, even a minor accusation can escalate into immigration consequences.
✅ Chat Practice Pointer: After a local arrest, ICE may issue a detainer—also known as a “civil immigration hold request”—which asks local law enforcement to continue custody beyond the scheduled release date to allow federal agents to assume control. Please note that our fact pattern discusses a removal to New York from California.
Source: ChatGPT
In Ana’s case, that transfer resulted in her being placed into ICE custody, despite a pending family law case.
What Happened at Baker: A Civil Rights Catastrophe
According to a civil rights complaint submitted by the ACLU of Florida and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Ana was subjected to multiple violations of the National Detention Standards (2019) and U.S. constitutional protections:
Solitary confinement for a language misunderstanding. Physical restraint while partially undressed and mocked by officers. Denied access to her family law attorney and court hearings. The alleged falsification of medical records and retaliatory conditions. Obstruction of access to her custody file and legal documents. So you can see some of the potential risks to federal detention when there is a pending custody matter.
Ana’s detention became a case study in how immigration enforcement mechanisms—especially when outsourced to private or county facilities—can override due process and expose vulnerable women to institutional abuse.
The Broader Political Context: July 2025 – Deportation Escalation
As of July 15, 2025, the Trump administration has formally announced plans to accelerate the deportation of immigrants, including those with pending protections.
According to Democracy Now!, the administration is moving forward with transfers to third countries—without full judicial review or due process. These policies raise an urgent warning for family law and immigration attorneys:
“The infrastructure is in place to expedite detention, restrict counsel access, and process removals before protective proceedings are complete—including family court hearings.”
Quote: ChatGPT
Ana’s experience foreshadows exactly what civil liberties groups are now sounding the alarm about: immigration enforcement as a tool of retaliation, silence, and systemic isolation.
Chat Recommendations for Family Law Attorneys:
Of course, if you disagree with my chat, you do have a right to your opinion but just remember to express that opinion in a respectful and constructive manner—especially in the digital space.
Please feel free to contact me to provide constructive feedback that would benefit Ana or those like her. I will do my best to update that information.
Assert UCCJEA home state jurisdiction immediately, especially in relocation cases.
Challenge § 278.5 filings that are retaliatory or procedurally defective.
Prepare declarations and motions to prevent ICE interference in family court custody orders.
Demand trauma-informed custody evaluations to counteract false mental health narratives.
Chat suggestions for Immigration Attorneys:
Investigate whether custody allegations are driving ICE interest.
File to stay removals where constitutional and parental rights are at risk.
Invoke ICE Directive 11064.3 (July 2022), also known as the Parental Interest Directive, which mandates that detained parents be allowed to participate in custody proceedings.
Due Process Must Be Respected
Ana’s case is not merely tragic—it is instructive. It shows how quickly family law can become criminal law, and how that can lead to immigration enforcement without meaningful judicial review.
The courts are meant to prioritize the best interest of the child, yet without access to hearings, legal representation, or trauma-informed review, parents are being removed from the equation entirely. Please also consider that parents are also being held to account for their children’s behavior.
Attorneys must work across practice areas—and across jurisdictions—to ensure that parents like Ana are not lost to bureaucratic indifference or something far worse—political expedience.
Legal References
California Penal Code § 278.5
Custodial interference, which is not expressly defined in California Family Code § 3020, is addressed in Penal Code Section 278.5, which criminalizes the act of taking, enticing, keeping, withholding or concealing a child with the intent to deprive a lawful custodian of their right to custody or visitation.
California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.
SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE
The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (aka Sally Vazquez). Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:
United States Law
Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction, ingestion, or simulation;
U.S. Constitution
First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship;
Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure;
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection;
Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights;
California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy;
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA);
Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices;
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control;
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.
International Law
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26;
Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation;
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data;
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation;
CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.
CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation
CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.
While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:
Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights; Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.
Application to Technology
Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:
Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.
CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.
FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE
Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):
Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.
ANTHROPIC LITIGATIONAND RESTRICTIONS
In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:
The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.
Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:
Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.
PROHIBITED USES
The following uses are expressly prohibited:
Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation;
Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction;
Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting;
Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations;
Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.
CEASE AND DESIST
You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:
All unauthorized use, simulation, ingestion, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.
Violations may result in:
Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.
AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS
Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:
The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.
No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights are reserved.
Disclaimer
The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.
This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation.
For inquiries regarding, “It’s Personal” and “Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy and Data Protection,” contact Attorney and Shareholder Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Castellanos & Associates, APLC, 251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 800, Pasadena, CA 91101. Telephone: (805) 732-2396.
Published on June 14, 2025. Revised on July 16, 2025.
When a child travels abroad for what seems like a short-term visit, most parents never imagine they might not return. But in international custody disputes, even well-intended plans can turn into high-conflict legal battles—and sometimes, criminal abduction.
California family courts understand these risks, and so should any parent involved in a move-away or international travel dispute.
A Realistic Scenario: When a Vacation Turns into a Custody Crisis
Imagine a California parent agrees to let their child visit grandparents in another country for a two-week vacation. The trip begins smoothly. But the return flight is missed, communication stalls, and eventually the parent discovers the child has been enrolled in school abroad—with no intent to return.
This is not just a custody issue. It may constitute wrongful retention under international law and a crime under California law.
Family Abduction and California Penal Code § 278.5
Under California Penal Code § 278.5, it is a crime for any person, including a parent or relative, to “take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal a child and maliciously deprive a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation.”¹
This law applies whether or not a formal custody order exists, as long as the person knows—or reasonably should know—that their actions deprive another person of lawful custody or visitation. Penalties range from one year in county jail (misdemeanor) to up to three years in state prison (felony).² Obtaining a custody order in a foreign court after the fact is not a defense.³
Parental Alienation and the Child’s Right to Meaningful Contact
In In re Marriage of LaMusga, the California Supreme Court emphasized that trial courts must consider whether a proposed relocation would significantly harm the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent.⁴ Where there is a risk of alienation, courts may deny relocation or impose strict safeguards to preserve the child’s bond with both parents.
The Hague Convention: Not Always a Guarantee
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a process for returning children wrongfully removed or retained across borders.⁵ However, the Convention’s effectiveness depends on:
Whether the foreign country is a Hague signatory; Whether the country actively enforces return orders; Whether the country honors U.S. custody decisions in practice.
Even among Hague partner countries, compliance can be uneven.⁶ In non-Hague countries, California courts are far more likely to deny international move-away requests.⁷
What California Courts Say About Foreign Enforcement
In In re Marriage of Condon, the court denied a mother’s request to relocate her children to Australia, emphasizing her failure to demonstrate that California custody orders would be enforced there.⁸ The court found that without credible foreign enforcement mechanisms, the child’s relationship with the father would be at serious risk.
In C.T. v. Superior Court (2025) (pending publication), the court reaffirmed that even if California retains jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, that authority is meaningless if the foreign court refuses to comply with California orders.
Why Virtual Visitation Is Not Enough
Some parents suggest video calls (Zoom, FaceTime) as a substitute for in-person parenting. However, courts have found that virtual visitation is no replacement for consistent, physical presence. In emotionally sensitive or high-conflict cases, digital contact may be interrupted or manipulated—especially where alienation is already a concern.
Mirror Custody Orders: A Tool, Not a Cure-All
A mirror custody order is a foreign court order that replicates the terms of a California custody judgment. It allows the foreign country to enforce the same terms, ideally making the California order binding abroad.
In Condon, the court noted that the absence of a mirror order—and the lack of proof it could be obtained—undermined the relocating parent’s case.⁹ Mirror orders are not guaranteed. Some countries will not recognize them. Others may modify them under local law or require mutual parental consent.
When representing a client seeking or contesting international relocation:
Request judicial notice of enforcement risks in non-Hague jurisdictions. Cite Condon and LaMusga to show the danger of non-enforceable orders and potential child detriment. Engage international counsel early to confirm whether a mirror order is available and effective in the destination country.
Preventive Legal Tools to Consider
California courts may also order:
Passport restrictions under Family Code § 3048;
Travel bonds to guarantee return or cover enforcement expenses;
Geographic and temporal limits on travel;
Mirror orders as a condition for visitation or relocation;
Expert affidavits from foreign counsel about enforcement capacity.
These tools are essential where enforcement risks are high and the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent is at stake.
Conclusion
International custody matters require more than paperwork—they demand foresight, risk assessment, and enforceable planning. Without a credible mirror order, judicial safeguards, or Hague cooperation, a parent may lose access to their child across borders with little recourse. Whether you are seeking or opposing a relocation, consulting an attorney with experience in international custody enforcement can protect your rights and your child’s best interests.
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or relying on this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult a qualified California family law attorney to evaluate your specific situation.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Shareholder and Attorney, Sally Castellanos at Castellanos & Associates, APLC, Industrious at Pasaroyo in Pasadena, 251 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 91101. Telephone (805) 732-2376 or (323) 655-2105.
Legal Footnotes
1. Cal. Penal Code § 278.5(a).
2. Id.
3. Cal. Penal Code § 278.5(c).
4. In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal. 4th 1072 (2004).
5. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670.
6. U.S. Dep’t of State, Annual Report on International Child Abduction (2024), [travel.state.gov].
7. LaMusga, supra note 4, at 1097.
8. In re Marriage of Condon, 62 Cal. App. 4th 533, 555 (1998).
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.
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:
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.
It's Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law 
You must be logged in to post a comment.