Christina Avgerinos has now demanded twice that I stop writing. Here’s why that demand has no legal teeth — and why the attempt itself is part of the pattern.
By Michael Phillips | Father & Co.
On the morning of April 29, 2026, I received a follow-up email from Christina Avgerinos. The first demand, sent April 28, asked me to remove our son’s name from my writing. This one went further: she wants her own name removed, too. All identifying information. All existing posts. All future writing. She called it a clear boundary and asked me to confirm compliance.
I want to address this directly, because it deserves a direct answer — not just for my situation, but for every targeted parent who has been told, in one form or another, to stay quiet.
She cannot legally compel this. And the attempt to do so is itself worth documenting.
What the Law Actually Says
Christina Avgerinos has no legal mechanism to compel me to remove her name or Dylan’s name from my writing. That is not an opinion — it is the legal framework governing press freedom in Maryland and the United States.
Start with the basics. The First Amendment prohibits prior restraint — the government blocking speech before it is published. No court has issued any such order here. What Christina sent is a private demand, not a legal order. Private individuals do not have the authority to issue binding speech restrictions to journalists or anyone else.
On the question of naming private individuals in reporting on matters of public concern, the Supreme Court addressed the underlying tension directly in Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967), recognizing that the First Amendment protects publication of newsworthy information even when private individuals are involved and would prefer the information remain unpublished. The key question courts ask is whether the matter is of legitimate public concern — not whether the subject consents to coverage.
Family court dysfunction and parental alienation are unambiguously matters of public concern. They affect millions of families. They involve court orders, judicial enforcement, and the constitutional rights of parents. Legal scholars have argued that the Constitution likely requires at least a heightened showing of harm before any parent’s speech in a custody context can be restricted. No such showing has been made here.
As a Maryland-based journalist, I also operate under the protection of the oldest shield law in the United States. Maryland’s Shield Law states that anyone employed by the news media in any newsgathering or disseminating capacity cannot be forced to disclose the source of news or information obtained in the course of their work. Any party seeking to override that protection must demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of an overriding public interest in disclosure — through a legal proceeding, before a court. Christina has made no such showing because no legal proceeding has been initiated. She sent an email.
There is also the question of who qualifies as a journalist. Father & Co. is a published independent news outlet covering family court accountability. Riptide is my national investigative publication. MDBayNews is an established Maryland regional news outlet.
I am not a hobbyist writing a personal diary. I am a working journalist documenting matters of public concern, consistently and on the record. I am a member of Investigative Reporters and Editors, the nation’s leading organization for accountability journalism, and the National Writers Union, which advocates for press freedom protections for independent journalists. My work appears across multiple published outlets covering local, state, and national accountability stories, including The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Post, and The Daily Record. The suggestion that I have no standing to report on my own documented experience — or to name the people involved — has no basis in law or in fact.
The demand to remove her name is not a legal claim. It is an attempt to use the appearance of legal authority to achieve what no court has ordered. That tactic has a name in First Amendment law: a chilling effect. It is exactly what press freedom protections exist to prevent.
The Demand That Arrived Eight Minutes After the Other One
This is not the first demand this week. On April 28, Christina sent two emails in the span of eight minutes. The first, at 7:43 AM, disclosed — almost as an aside — that Dylan had been in therapy for the past six to nine months and had been seen monthly since last June. I did not know this. I was not informed when therapy began. I was not given the provider’s name or contact information. I was not included in any aspect of his mental health care, despite a court order requiring that I be kept informed of his healthcare providers and treatment.
Eight minutes later, at 7:51 AM, the demand to remove Dylan’s name arrived.
The sequence matters. The same morning I was told to stop writing, I learned — for the first time — that my son had been in therapy for most of the past year. Those two facts arrived together. I will let the reader draw their own conclusions about the timing.
The Pattern the Demand Fits
I have sent messages through Our Family Wizard that have gone unanswered. I have been excluded from my son’s therapy for months without notification, in apparent violation of our court order. I have not had parenting time since January 21, 2024, in apparent violation of our court order.
But when I published an article for Parental Alienation Awareness Day, I received a response within hours. When I published a follow-up documenting the therapy disclosure, I received another response within hours.
The pattern is not subtle. Communication about Dylan’s actual care and wellbeing goes unanswered. Communication attempting to control what I say publicly gets an immediate reply.
That asymmetry is the story. I didn’t create it. I’m reporting it.
My Response
I told Christina Avgerinos that I will continue to write about my experiences as a parent and the circumstances affecting my relationship with our son. I told her that it is not something she controls. And I told her that if she has concerns about being referenced in that context, the most direct path to addressing them is complying with the court-ordered parenting time and communicating appropriately about Dylan’s care and wellbeing.
That offer remains open.
I am Dylan’s father. I have been his father through every day of the 15 months I have not been permitted to see him. I have been his father through every other day she has interfered with my ability to be his father since his birth in 2019. Writing is not a substitute for that. But it is a record — and the record will stand long after the demands to silence it are forgotten.
Dylan turned 7 last month. I am still here.
Still Here is an ongoing series documenting one father’s fight to remain in his son’s life.
Sources and Legal References
The legal framework referenced in this article draws on the following:
Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967) — Supreme Court recognition that the First Amendment protects publication of newsworthy information involving private individuals when the matter is of legitimate public concern.
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) — Supreme Court affirmation that parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest protected under the 14th Amendment, and that government cannot unjustly interfere with a fit parent’s right to care, custody, and control of their child.
Maryland Shield Law, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 9-112 — The nation’s oldest shield law, first enacted in 1896, protecting journalists in Maryland from compelled disclosure of news or information gathered in the course of their work. Any party seeking to override this protection must demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of an overriding public interest in a legal proceeding before a court.
Eugene Volokh, “Child Custody Speech Restrictions,” 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 631 (2006) — Legal analysis arguing that the First Amendment likely requires a heightened showing of harm before a court may restrict a parent’s speech in a custody context.
First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University — Reference on the application of First Amendment protections in child custody speech restriction cases.
The legal references above are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Father & Co. is not a law firm. Every custody situation is governed by its own facts, jurisdiction, and applicable law. If you are navigating a family court matter, consult a licensed attorney in your state. All factual claims in this article are based on documented communications and court records.
Keep Father & Co. Free
Father & Co. exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.
If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.
Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?
Father & Co. offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.
Have a story, experience, or resource to share?
Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.
Discover more from Fatherand.Co
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
