It is perhaps ironic that devices with the potential to bring individuals together also have the ability to create the sort of difference and division between family members which can ultimately end up in court.

Yet the Sunday Times has recently described how disputes about children’s screen time have become “the new divorce flashpoint”.

I would agree that access to and use – or misuse – of smartphones and tablets is a regular source of friction in my caseload.

However, such arguments are not necessarily new and have, I believe, been a feature of the work handled by family lawyers for almost as long as the technology has been available.

What seems to have changed is the degree to which children’s habits have become the focus of rows.

That is perhaps in line with the increase of digital devices in use and the age at which some children gain access to them.

In my experience, disagreements not only concern children’s online activity but whether it fits in with respective family values.

That is especially topical, given the Government’s announcement of plans to ban the use of social media platforms by children aged younger than 16.

I would suggest that another key consideration is how the tensions which flare up between parents on the issue of children’s screen time can now be resolved.

Back in 2016, family court judge Peter Jackson warned of “serious consequences” arising from parents’ use of digital devices, specifically in that instance as a means of surveillance.

In the decade since, courts have appeared reluctant to deliberate on such problems, unless it is thought inappropriate and represents a safeguarding issue.

Regardless of how concerned those directly involved are about it, judges and Cafcass – the agency which represents the views of children and young people within the family court – generally do not believe it to be a sufficiently grave problem to occupy court time with.

Such matters would also not even usually be mentioned in correspondence exchanged by parents’ respective solicitors.

Instead, it is a much more suitable point for mediation to explore.

In my experience, that is because there is no definitive ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ approach to screen time – or provision of digital devices in the first place.

Differences in parenting styles can become more pronounced after separation and lead to disagreement, particularly if clear expectations or ground rules are not set down.

In that sense, communication – which actually should be improved by having these devices available to us – often suffers when it comes to weighing up how, when and by whom they are used.

Mediation allows for positive outcomes based on a more individual understanding of family circumstances and values.

Whilst some adults adopt a more liberal, connected approach to children having smartphones and social media accounts, others are opposed for educational or even medical reasons.

Those in favour often point to the benefits of convenience, contact, safety and social inclusion as well as the importance of children developing digital literacy on devices which present opportunities for learning and independence.

By contrast, opponents warn against excessive screen time, risks to mental health and online safety and the potential for smartphones to limit children’s social and emotional development.

Those differences in perspective are what can give rise to conflict.

One case with which I dealt with, for example, involved concerns about the problems posed by frequent mobile phone use for a child diagnosed with ADHD.

The recent Sunday Times’ article suggested that ministers’ determination to put in place what were described as “world-leading blocks” on user-to-user social media platforms might lead judges having to take children’s screen time into account when making decisions about childcare arrangements.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether an initiative championed by Keir Starmer will be followed up in the wake of his resignation as Prime Minister.

I do not think that parents will simply put disagreements about their childrens’ smartphone use on hold to await the outcome of discussions on parliamentary policy or leadership.

Nevertheless, they certainly need to be aware of the potential consequences of opting to take their disputes to court.

That is not least because, in the Child-Focused Court system which the Government recently outlined a nationwide extension of, the outcome is heavily weighted in favour of Cafcass’ viewpoint.

It means that parents often lose any sense of being able to help shape a final decision, with judges even having the power to make orders without hearing formally from them.

When it comes to speed and autonomy or flexibility, mediation and other forms of Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR), including child-inclusive mediation, are especially useful and, I feel, will be much more in demand in the future.

As a mediator, I am already seeing an increasing number of families opting to agree parenting plans soon after separation, setting out what should happen if disagreements arise and make clear the arrangements for matters such as screen time, discipline, religion, education and even when and how to introduce new partners to their children.

I am convinced that it is better to be proactive in discussing these issues than simply ignoring them and risking them becoming a source of genuine tension.

Failing to act now could lead to families even more disconnected, whether they have the latest communication technology or not.