It’s a question that’s becoming increasingly frequent:what should co-parents do if the phone they’ve provided for their child’s use is confiscated by the other co-parent as a punishment for the child’s misconduct?
A story that recently played out in a Texas courtroom offers some lessons – – though lessons mostly of what not to do.
ALL THIS OVER A PHONE?
According to news reports, Ronald Jackson was found not guilty of criminal theft charges filed when he confiscated his 12-year-old daughter’s phone as a punishment after finding inappropriate text messages on it.
Seems like reasonable punishment, right?
The big problem: the girl’s mother, Michelle Steppe, objected because she had bought the phone and paid the monthly bill. Jackson refused to turn the phone back over to her. Because she considered it her property, Steppe reported the confiscation of the phone as theft, and Jackson was arrested.
In January, Jackson had his day in court, with the judge ordering a not guilty verdict after finding insufficient evidence.
WE’RE LEFT TO WONDER . . .
There are, admittedly, some critical things left unexplained in media reports. For example, it is unclear:
- exactly what type of custody the parents shared of the 12-year old daughter (joint custody? split custody?) and what role each co-parent had as a result;
- whether the custody arrangement was informal, or Court-ordered;
- where the child lived primarily, and whether this stay with her father was regular co-parenting time or something else;
- the extent to which the father may have been involved in the decision to purchase the phone for the girl’s use;
- and, importantly, whether the co-parents had even explored whether, when, and how the phone might be confiscated as a disciplinary method.
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED
Even without knowing those factual details, there are lessons here for co-parents navigating the rough seas of raising ‘Tweens and Teens who are seemingly glued to their phones and devices.
1. A little planning by co-parents could go a long way.
It is not surprising that a 12-year-old (and certainly any older child) may have a phone or similar device dedicated to their own use. That is routinely the case where a child splits time between parents in different households: when the child is with mom, he needs to be able to contact dad from time to time for phone calls or FaceTime visits, and vice versa.
Because it is a bit of a given that children of these ages will have phones and devices as part of their daily routines, it is also easy to expect that circumstances may sometimes call for removal of the phone or device as a disciplinary tool.
If co-parents, being thoughtful, can anticipate these issues coming up eventually, then co-parents can plan for them in advance – – and can make certain the child is informed of the policy. That means having a coherent, agreed strategy as to whether, when, and how the phone or device might be taken, whether the temporary ban is total or partial, and for how long the punishment might be expected to last. At a minimum, the parents can at least agree to what action steps they’ll take to inform one another when a potential confiscation is involved; in its best form, a confiscation policy can be part of a more comprehensive ‘electronics’ contract between parents and children.
Either way, advanced planning will surely create a disciplinary option that is focused and effective, one that does not divert itself to a conflict between parents.
2. Ordinarily, don’t shut off the child’s contact with a co-parent.
If children are to develop and maintain good bonds with both parents, they need to have regular (and somewhat self-guided) communication. Mobile phones and cellular-enabled tablets are often provided to older children so they may have direct communication with one parent while they are visiting with the other parent.
This is desirable not only because it fosters bonds between kids and their parents. It also eliminates the need to involve the visited parent in reasonable daily phone calls, and diminishes the potential for ongoing conflict between uncommunicative parents who ignore or block the other’s phone calls. Indeed, allowing a child of a certain responsible age to have a phone or device for his or her use contacting the other parent is consistent with the idea of not putting the kids in the middle of parents’ squabbles.
When a child uses a phone or device to stay in touch with the other parent, it becomes a proverbial life-line of such communication. Cutting off that life-line is not something that should be done lightly, or without consultation with the other parent. Too often, though, that is the very goal behind confiscation of phones and devices, or restrictions on their use: a misguided mom wants to make sure dad will not hear from the child at all while with mom (or, of course, vice versa). This is frequently done for spite or to inflict pain on the other parent, without regard to the harm the child suffers as a result.
Instead, co-parents should strive to assure their children have reasonable daily access, via phone calls or video chat, to the parent they are not spending time with that day. If that means providing an alternative to a confiscated mobile phone or device, or allowing limited supervised use of the otherwise-confiscated phone, either is preferable to blocking such contact altogether.
3. Co-parents sharing may make more sense.
It seems that a significant part of the conflict between the Texas parents boiled down to the mother’s insistence that she owned the phone, and that the father had stolen her personal property.
That raises the question: what would have been the story of this dispute if the parents jointly owned the phone? If they had each paid one-half of the purchase price and one-half of the monthly service contract?
What if the phone was intended by both parents not only to allow the daughter to call mom while she was visiting with dad, but if it was also to allow her to call dad when she was spending time with mom?
Since these parents (as is increasingly common) were never married, perhaps they had never shared a joint mobile phone plan, or did not explore whether one could be opened. Perhaps, given their apparent animosity, the idea was never even conceived or considered. Or, perhaps one or the other would not agree to such sharing when the issue was raised.
Because the Texas parents couldn’t or didn’t, though, is no reason for any other parents to follow their (bad) example. Joint ownership and financial responsibility by parents for a child’s mobile phone or device can provide a good chance for joint planning and “same page” thinking about confiscating the phone as punishment. As an added bonus: the child will routinely have similar access to call both parents, so if a parent wants to preserve that benefit for himself he will be mindful of not sabotaging the other parent’s similar benefit.
Co-Parents Can Avoid This “Hang-Up”
There’s a familiar saying, attributed to various statesmen, coaches, and businessmen, that is paraphrased as “failing to plan means planning to fail.” I would submit that is what happened to these parents. It seems obvious they did not have prior conversations about whether, when, and how their daughter’s phone could be confiscated for disciplinary purposes.
And just look at the tragedy that resulted to this family in the nearly two and a half years since then. The father was arrested, jailed, and forced to defend himself against a criminal charge that could have landed him in jail for up to six months. The daughter, who was now 15-years-old, was forced to testify in court against her father in an effort to convict him of charges initiated by her mother. And, perhaps most crushing, the father now admits that the entire ordeal will likely end any hopes of a continued relationship with his daughter.
Avoiding these tragic outcomes is reason enough to give prior thought to the question of how to handle punishments involving children’s mobile phones. I routinely advise my clients to include in their custody agreements provisions addressing regular phone or video contact with their children, and stipulating whether, when, and how a child’s phone may be confiscated or restricted from their use as punishment.
By addressing the topic in advance, co-parents should not find themselves asking what to do after the confiscation has occurred, much less accusing one another of theft.
Leave a Reply