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, 2025. Revised on September 23, 2025.
What happens when a moment of maternal care becomes a criminal act? For Ana, an immigrant mother in Florida and survivor of domestic violence, taking her U.S. citizen son out for ice cream—outside the court’s supervised visitation schedule—resulted in her prosecution, separation from her child, and eventual detention by federal immigration authorities.
Ana’s story is the subject of a powerful case study published by the ACLU of Florida, which documents how Florida’s family and criminal legal systems intersect with federal immigration enforcement to disproportionately punish immigrant women and mothers of color. Charged under Florida Statutes § 787.03 for Interference with Custody, Ana’s brief unsupervised outing with her son triggered a cascade of punitive actions, including solitary confinement and prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The case illustrates how local courts and ICE collaborate in ways that can override a parent’s best intentions, escalate family disputes into criminal matters, and ignore the trauma histories of survivors. As the ACLU explains, Ana’s experience is not an isolated incident—it reflects a broader national pattern:
“The criminalization of immigrant parents—particularly mothers—results in unjust prosecutions, long-term separation from children, and due process violations that undermine the integrity of both family and immigration systems.”
— ACLU of Florida, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Report
The report raises urgent legal and human rights questions such as:
Are immigrant parents being punished for trying to maintain a bond with their children?
What safeguards exist when custody orders intersect with criminal statutes and immigration enforcement?
How can legal systems account for trauma, survival, and cultural context in family law proceedings?
Please visit the ACLU website to learn more about Ana’s story.
ACLU of Florida, “Ana’s Story: When Family Law and Immigration Enforcement Collide” (2024), available at:
This case and others demands not only empathy but legal reform. Custody disputes should not be criminalized—especially not when immigrant families are already navigating systems stacked against them.
I would like to thank the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (Florida) and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.
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.
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. (a/k/a Sally Vazquez and 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 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, 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 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.
It's Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law 
You must be logged in to post a comment.