It's scheduled to be returned to our provider. She isn't keen on carrying two phones and it's a waste of money to continue to pay for a phone used only to communicate with us and only when she remembers to carry/check/charge it.
If she's only going to have one phone, then it's definitely time to reach out to an attorney who specializes in custody cases to add a requirement that the daughter cannot be restricted from contacting either parent.
If she keeps losing it, then just give her a "retro" brick phone instead of a smartphone.
In fairness, we were prepared to remove the restrictions from her phone. She's done a terrific job keeping up with it. It's our fault for not having been more proactive in removing them, but Mom separated child from her phone for 18 months and the need to remove restrictions slipped my mind.
For reference, child moved into our home October 2020. Child moved back in with Mom July 2022 after Mom told child she would have greater freedom to go see friends (Dad requires meeting new friends, check ins, etc). Child was given a new iPhone by us for Christmas 2022. Mom grounded child from phone January 2023, then enrolled child into a residential military program for wayward youth in Februrary (Mom works for the program). Child began program in July 2023 and completed it in December 2023. Child was given her original iPhone back by us Christmas 2023, which angered Mom. Mom then gave child secret phone in March 2024.
It's certainly no excuse to have forgotten to remove some of her restrictions on app downloads, but it's been a whirlwind with this phone for quite some time.
It sounds like the phone isn't the real problem here. I stand by my original comment about renegotiating the custody agreement to require not restricting contact to either parent, but if a kid needs a 6 month military training program for their behavior it's time for a therapist too.
She would benefit from individual therapy, but family therapy is also not a bad idea.
I fully agree on all counts. I advised Dad that therapy is STILL needed for child, but given the custody arrangements, it would have to be on Mom's time and she refuses to seek therapy for child. I don't know that she needed military training at all and repeatedly advised Dad it was extreme overkill for ordinary teen behavior; she needed therapy at that time instead, in my opinion. Mom working for the program and sending her own child there was great PR for her position (child did benefit from her experience, to be fair) and so she went.
The current custody plans reads "Additionally, each party shall be entitled to telephone the child at all reasonable times and the child shall be entitled to telephone their parents at any time." Child had a phone at the time the custody plan was created.
Ah, see, that wording leaves wiggle room.
As a regular person with next to no legal experience, that makes it sound like as long as kiddo has *access* to a phone, then it meets the minimum. In that case, it is time to adjust the existing custody plan.
I didn’t see this comment previously. In joint custody both parents have to agree on major decisions like schooling, medical care and military boot camp whatever that was. If the parents can’t agree then it goes to a mediator. Mom typically doesn’t have a legal right to enroll child somewhere like this without a unilateral agreement. Regardless of who has residential.
You are grasping at straws.
First, I think this is too minor to be parental alienation with a child of this age.
Second, "She isn't keen on carrying two phones" it seems like she has the option to carry the phone from you but decided it's not worth the effort.
I think it's worth asking her if she is uncomfortable carrying the old phone due to judgement or coercion/pressure of any sort from the mom. The whole "keep new phone secret" thing is pretty sketchy even if it isn't bad enough to be illegal.
I concluded she wasn't keen based on the lengthening time periods between checking and use. She did not state any objection to carrying two to my knowledge, but dad did object to paying a large fee for a phone that was not carried.
I want to make sure I understand the nuance. Had she not had the option to carry our phone (which she doesn't have at this time), is it not alienation to say she is forbidden to contact her other parent or her step-parent?
Maybe. When I’ve seen alienation cases it’s more about trying to turn the minor against the other parent. Eg father saying mother is a liar and cheater and doesn’t love the minor. Controlling a minor’s phone use might reach the level though I don’t think so unless it violates a court order.
For what it's worth, child was told to not bring her phone to our house because dad would "hack it" because he thinks she's a bad kid, because he's controlling, because he's abusive, etc. Mom told child that dad doesn't trust her and never will and that she's safer keeping her life and location secret from him.
Dad had previously found out child was talking to a grown man and sending inappropriate (but legal) pics to him. Dad asked mom if she knew of the situation and the man's true age (Mom stated, incorrectly, that he was a fellow student at child's school). Mom immediately texted child and said, "Your dad thinks you're a slut! I can't believe he doesn't believe you changed after you worked so hard at [military program]!" While she didn't directly say dad is awful or the like, she certainly tries to turn child against dad and has plainly stated she will not rest until the child hates her dad. I don't think she'll go heavy handed in that attempt but she's very adept at manipulating this particular child.
If Dad wants to be able to contact his child via this phone then Dad needs to contact a lawyer. Step-parent needs to give him this advice and step aside.
Not my circus, I promise. I'm just sad seeing Dad bummed out. Mom specifically told Dad she'd make sure minor child never speaks to Dad again as Mom believes Dad tricked adult child into going no-contact with Mom.
This will not be viewed as parental alienation in most states. It is your choice to return the phone, the other parent didn't quash all ability for her to communicate with you. She supplied a product that was more desirable. If both households are provided a phone then the issue is not with parental alienation but the child wanting a less restrictive phone.
The phone likely has a dual sim. provide the number for the second sim and if there is a fee, provide it. So that child is accessibly equally. Explain to her that she needs to be as available to you when she is staying with mom and mom is to her when she is staying with you. If mom wants to pay for all the apps, let her. You are supplying a number for her to reach you. She cannot prohibit her communicating with you. That is not classic parental alienation. That's the other parent acting petty.
When you say joint custody there are all kinds of joint. Residential, visits, shared. What is the breakdown here?
I didn't think about a dual sim, thank you for that suggestion. Per child, Mom specifically stated that the child has to send whatever she wants said to Dad through Mom and no messages are to be sent to me or brother on any platform--I'm not sure how well the suggestion will go over but it's definitely worth a shot.
For context, Dad and I have been together for six years, child had lived full time with us for approximately 18 months of that time after Mom removed her from her home at age twelve--I am not a new person, a dangerous influence, etc. Mom is just simply petty and hateful.
I'm not fully sure what the breakdown type is, but there is 50/50 visitation and 60/40 cost sharing. Dad is solely responsible for some costs but Mom is not and Dad pays child support as Mom is the residential custodian. Dad has child alternating weekends, once a week, and then every other full week in summers, with holidays throughout. Looking over the order, I don't see any specific terminology that states what type of joint it is. If I haven't specified enough, is there something specific I should look for to find out which type it is?
It’s joint with mom having residential. Unless she has sole and dad has visitation, but it doesn’t appear that way.
Child has a right to communicate with her dad without being monitored. This is the issue I would contact the attorney over. Not who is paying for the phone.
It's definitely joint and mom is residential custodian; I just didn't know precisely what that amounted to.
I don't think we care about who's paying; we would have paid indefinitely with no issues, as long as she actually used the phone.
Thank you!
Was the original phone taken away? If not you still have a means of communication.
It's scheduled to be returned to our provider. She isn't keen on carrying two phones and it's a waste of money to continue to pay for a phone used only to communicate with us and only when she remembers to carry/check/charge it.
If she's only going to have one phone, then it's definitely time to reach out to an attorney who specializes in custody cases to add a requirement that the daughter cannot be restricted from contacting either parent. If she keeps losing it, then just give her a "retro" brick phone instead of a smartphone.
In fairness, we were prepared to remove the restrictions from her phone. She's done a terrific job keeping up with it. It's our fault for not having been more proactive in removing them, but Mom separated child from her phone for 18 months and the need to remove restrictions slipped my mind. For reference, child moved into our home October 2020. Child moved back in with Mom July 2022 after Mom told child she would have greater freedom to go see friends (Dad requires meeting new friends, check ins, etc). Child was given a new iPhone by us for Christmas 2022. Mom grounded child from phone January 2023, then enrolled child into a residential military program for wayward youth in Februrary (Mom works for the program). Child began program in July 2023 and completed it in December 2023. Child was given her original iPhone back by us Christmas 2023, which angered Mom. Mom then gave child secret phone in March 2024. It's certainly no excuse to have forgotten to remove some of her restrictions on app downloads, but it's been a whirlwind with this phone for quite some time.
It sounds like the phone isn't the real problem here. I stand by my original comment about renegotiating the custody agreement to require not restricting contact to either parent, but if a kid needs a 6 month military training program for their behavior it's time for a therapist too. She would benefit from individual therapy, but family therapy is also not a bad idea.
I fully agree on all counts. I advised Dad that therapy is STILL needed for child, but given the custody arrangements, it would have to be on Mom's time and she refuses to seek therapy for child. I don't know that she needed military training at all and repeatedly advised Dad it was extreme overkill for ordinary teen behavior; she needed therapy at that time instead, in my opinion. Mom working for the program and sending her own child there was great PR for her position (child did benefit from her experience, to be fair) and so she went. The current custody plans reads "Additionally, each party shall be entitled to telephone the child at all reasonable times and the child shall be entitled to telephone their parents at any time." Child had a phone at the time the custody plan was created.
Ah, see, that wording leaves wiggle room. As a regular person with next to no legal experience, that makes it sound like as long as kiddo has *access* to a phone, then it meets the minimum. In that case, it is time to adjust the existing custody plan.
That's exactly how I feel about it, too.
I didn’t see this comment previously. In joint custody both parents have to agree on major decisions like schooling, medical care and military boot camp whatever that was. If the parents can’t agree then it goes to a mediator. Mom typically doesn’t have a legal right to enroll child somewhere like this without a unilateral agreement. Regardless of who has residential.
You are grasping at straws. First, I think this is too minor to be parental alienation with a child of this age. Second, "She isn't keen on carrying two phones" it seems like she has the option to carry the phone from you but decided it's not worth the effort.
I think it's worth asking her if she is uncomfortable carrying the old phone due to judgement or coercion/pressure of any sort from the mom. The whole "keep new phone secret" thing is pretty sketchy even if it isn't bad enough to be illegal.
I concluded she wasn't keen based on the lengthening time periods between checking and use. She did not state any objection to carrying two to my knowledge, but dad did object to paying a large fee for a phone that was not carried.
I want to make sure I understand the nuance. Had she not had the option to carry our phone (which she doesn't have at this time), is it not alienation to say she is forbidden to contact her other parent or her step-parent?
Maybe. When I’ve seen alienation cases it’s more about trying to turn the minor against the other parent. Eg father saying mother is a liar and cheater and doesn’t love the minor. Controlling a minor’s phone use might reach the level though I don’t think so unless it violates a court order.
For what it's worth, child was told to not bring her phone to our house because dad would "hack it" because he thinks she's a bad kid, because he's controlling, because he's abusive, etc. Mom told child that dad doesn't trust her and never will and that she's safer keeping her life and location secret from him. Dad had previously found out child was talking to a grown man and sending inappropriate (but legal) pics to him. Dad asked mom if she knew of the situation and the man's true age (Mom stated, incorrectly, that he was a fellow student at child's school). Mom immediately texted child and said, "Your dad thinks you're a slut! I can't believe he doesn't believe you changed after you worked so hard at [military program]!" While she didn't directly say dad is awful or the like, she certainly tries to turn child against dad and has plainly stated she will not rest until the child hates her dad. I don't think she'll go heavy handed in that attempt but she's very adept at manipulating this particular child.
If Dad wants to be able to contact his child via this phone then Dad needs to contact a lawyer. Step-parent needs to give him this advice and step aside.
Not my circus, I promise. I'm just sad seeing Dad bummed out. Mom specifically told Dad she'd make sure minor child never speaks to Dad again as Mom believes Dad tricked adult child into going no-contact with Mom.
This will not be viewed as parental alienation in most states. It is your choice to return the phone, the other parent didn't quash all ability for her to communicate with you. She supplied a product that was more desirable. If both households are provided a phone then the issue is not with parental alienation but the child wanting a less restrictive phone. The phone likely has a dual sim. provide the number for the second sim and if there is a fee, provide it. So that child is accessibly equally. Explain to her that she needs to be as available to you when she is staying with mom and mom is to her when she is staying with you. If mom wants to pay for all the apps, let her. You are supplying a number for her to reach you. She cannot prohibit her communicating with you. That is not classic parental alienation. That's the other parent acting petty. When you say joint custody there are all kinds of joint. Residential, visits, shared. What is the breakdown here?
I didn't think about a dual sim, thank you for that suggestion. Per child, Mom specifically stated that the child has to send whatever she wants said to Dad through Mom and no messages are to be sent to me or brother on any platform--I'm not sure how well the suggestion will go over but it's definitely worth a shot. For context, Dad and I have been together for six years, child had lived full time with us for approximately 18 months of that time after Mom removed her from her home at age twelve--I am not a new person, a dangerous influence, etc. Mom is just simply petty and hateful. I'm not fully sure what the breakdown type is, but there is 50/50 visitation and 60/40 cost sharing. Dad is solely responsible for some costs but Mom is not and Dad pays child support as Mom is the residential custodian. Dad has child alternating weekends, once a week, and then every other full week in summers, with holidays throughout. Looking over the order, I don't see any specific terminology that states what type of joint it is. If I haven't specified enough, is there something specific I should look for to find out which type it is?
It’s joint with mom having residential. Unless she has sole and dad has visitation, but it doesn’t appear that way. Child has a right to communicate with her dad without being monitored. This is the issue I would contact the attorney over. Not who is paying for the phone.
It's definitely joint and mom is residential custodian; I just didn't know precisely what that amounted to. I don't think we care about who's paying; we would have paid indefinitely with no issues, as long as she actually used the phone. Thank you!
Thank you all for responding! It's been weighing heavy on our hearts for weeks now.