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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Oh I agree 100%. It's a pragmatic view, not the best one. 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.