“What looks like convenience is, in many cases, a quiet form of neglect.”
Smartphones and tablets have become the pacifiers of the 21st century. They’re handed to children in shopping carts, at the dinner table, in the back seat, and even in bed. Parents do it for peace and quiet. But the consequences are anything but quiet.
As an analyst who has investigated child welfare and domestic abuse cases for 20 years, I frequently see the long-term effects of chronic, unregulated screen use in children. I see it in custody disputes, child protection hearings, dependency court evaluations, and behavioural reports. And the patterns are clear.
Unsupervised screen exposure is not harmless. It’s harmful. In some cases, it’s child abuse by omission. It’s child neglect.
The New Face of Neglect
Neglect isn’t always about physical absence or lack of food. It can also be about what we fail to protect children from, especially when the harm is foreseeable. That’s what digital neglect is: a failure to supervise, guide, and protect a child in one of the most hazardous environments they can access—the internet. The children I refer to here range from two years old to teenagers.
What the Data Tells Us
Recent peer-reviewed research confirms what behavioural analysts have seen for years:
“We would never leave a child alone in a dangerous neighbourhood—but we leave them unmonitored online every day.”
Not a Tech Problem—a Parenting Problem
This isn’t about banning phones. It’s about boundaries. Boundaries determine when children are allowed to use these devices and how they are supervised. Children aren’t equipped to navigate the internet alone. When we hand over a device and walk away, we’re leaving them unsupervised in a world of adult content, toxic messaging, and manipulative algorithms. That’s child neglect.
Interestingly, many technology professionals, including those who design and develop the very devices and platforms children use, deliberately restrict their own children’s access to smartphones, tablets, and internet-connected devices until they are in their mid-teens. They know firsthand the psychological, developmental, and social risks these technologies pose, particularly when introduced too early and without supervision.
Parents say, “But they’re quiet.”
Yes—and that silence should worry you.
If a parent’s concern is that they need access to the children, internet-free flip phones work well without the risks.
What the Courts Are Missing
In family law cases, digital exposure is often ignored. But it shouldn’t be.
In high-conflict custody battles, we routinely identify unsupervised screen use as a factor in:
Digital exposure should be part of parenting plan evaluations, investigator interviews, and risk assessments, just like substance use or violence in the home.
Five Questions Every Investigator, Attorney, and Judge Should Ask:
Whatever the answer is, the reality is probably much higher. Back when people smoked more, doctors, when assessing their patients’ tobacco use, would ask patients how much they smoked and then double the answer to get an accurate assessment. The same formula applies to digital exposure for children. The reality is that most parents have no idea how much time their children spend online.
We Know Better Now
We once thought smoking in cars with children was harmless. We now call it endangerment. We once thought spanking was discipline. We now recognise it as violence. And now, we need to face the truth: chronic, unsupervised digital exposure is not parenting—it’s neglect. And it’s time we acted accordingly.
Evin M. Daly is a forensic sociologist and investigator at Behavioural Forensics LLC, specializing in case investigation and evaluation in child welfare, domestic violence and family courts. He has over 20 years’ experience in child protection, behavioural assessment, and court-appointed investigative work. Behavioural Forensics LLC
References