[orc00]

Taking away a phone from a child is far from meaningless. In fact, it is a very effective way of obtaining compliance if done correctly. I am curious about your perspective.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that a child should not have a smartphone to begin with. It fulfills no critical need to the welfare of the child.

[mewpmewp2]

I understand when a kid is anywhere from up to 13 years old, but at 17, it seems completely wacky to me to take the phone away and then go through the phone as well. I couldn't imagine living in that type of dystopia.

I don't think smartphones or screens with available content should be given as early as they are given on average, but once you've done that, and at 17, it's a whole other story.

> obtaining compliance if done correctly

This also sounds dystopian. At 17 you shouldn't "seek to obtain compliance" from your child. It sounds disrespectful and humiliating, not treating your child as an individual.

[orc00]

I would argue that there is a duty as a parent to monitor a child's welfare and that would include accessing a smartphone when deemed necessary. When a child turns 18, that duty becomes optional. In this case, these disturbing conversations certainly merit attention. I am not judging the totality of the parents history or their additional actions. I am merely focusing on the phone monitoring aspect. Seventeen doesn't automatically grant you rights that sixteen didn't have. However, at 18, they have the right to find a new place to live and support themselves as they see fit.

> This also sounds dystopian. At 17 you shouldn't "seek to obtain compliance" from your child. It sounds disrespectful and humiliating, not treating your child as an individual.

It is situation dependent. Sometimes immediate compliance is a necessity and the rest of it can be sorted out later. If a child is having conversations about killing their parents, there seems to be an absence of respect already. Compliance, however, can still be obtained.

[orc00]

> If you go by the actual years of the legal system to treat your kid as an independent individual, you probably have wrong approach to parenting.

Oh I agree 100%. It's a pragmatic view, not the best one. But the laws are what they are for a reason.

[mewpmewp2]

> But the laws are what they are for a reason.

For the sake of being able to uphold those laws on a societal level, but not in terms of being decent parents and family.

E.g. drinking alcohol in my country is legal only from 18, but I will teach my children about pros and cons of alcohol, how to use it responsibly much earlier. I won't punish them if they go out to party with their friends and consume alcohol at 16 years old.

[mewpmewp2]

If you go by the actual years of the legal system to treat your kid as an independent individual, you probably have wrong approach to parenting.

As a parent you should build trust and understanding with your child. From reading the court case I am seeing the opposite, and honestly I feel terrible for the child from how the case is written out. The child also wanted to go back to public school from home schooling, probably to get more social exposure, then parents take away the phone to take away even more freedom. I'm sorry, but all of the court case just infuriates me.

It seems they take away all the social exposure, no wonder the kid goes to Character AI in the first place.