Tina Swithin, founder of One Mom’s Battle (OMB), has long portrayed herself as an advocate for parents in contentious custody disputes.

However, her involvement in the infamous Utah TikTok case reveals a troubling pattern of exploiting vulnerable families, amplifying falsehoods, and disregarding legal orders, all under the guise of child protection.

Swithin’s conduct in this case was not only reckless but also profoundly harmful to the children involved.

As documented in Court records, her decision to contact the minor child involved under the pretense of offering “assistance,” was both inappropriate and intrusive, blatantly disregarding the Court’s authority, and compounding an already delicate situation.

By livestreaming the child’s TikTok videos and making them public on her social media platforms, she violated the privacy of two minor children, exposing them to widespread notoriety, further trauma, and public scrutiny.

These actions revealed a blatant disregard for the family’s crisis and undermined the Court’s efforts to resolve it.

Swithin’s behavior on this, and other cases, reflects classic gaslighting tactics, a hallmark of her role as a “social media influencer.”

These tactics include feigned compassion to distract from the harm she inflicts, denial of abuse, withholding critical information, questioning the memories of those impacted, shifting blame, dismissing children’s needs, and denying the truth—all of which exacerbate harm under the guise of her self-appointed advocacy.

However – and this is the critical point – Swithin appoints herself as savior of the children by meddling in the intimate affairs of their families, without professional qualifications or respect for the documented, verifiable facts of the cases.

Yet, she will not be there to hold these children when they wake in the middle of the night with nightmares.
She will not be by their bedside when suffering through chemotherapy treatments.
She will not be there for them when they have their first big heartache.
She will not lie awake at night worried sick until she hears their cars pull into the driveway.
She will not pay their college tuitions or walk them down the aisle.
And, she will not bury them when tragedies strike.

No, instead, Tina Swithin will meddle, exploit (her sites are monitized), and move on to the next family as it suits her.

Tina Swithin’s Lies - The Truth Behind the Infamous TikTok Case

Table of Contents

Background of the Utah TikTok Case

The case centers on a contentious custody dispute involving Jessica (the mother), Brent (the father), and their children, TL and BL.

According to a comprehensive 124-page report titled Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, issued by the Utah Court presiding over the matter, Jessica consistently violated Court orders, manipulated circumstances, and leveraged false abuse allegations in an effort to alienate Brent from their children.

The report states that multiple investigations found no evidence to support Jessica’s claims that Brent abused the children.

Despite these findings, Jessica continued to assert that Brent was guilty of abuse and actively worked to undermine court-ordered reunification efforts between him and the children.

The custody battle between Jessica and Brent became a public spectacle when TL, Jessica and Brent’s teenage child, barricaded himself and his younger sister in their bedroom to defy a Court order that transferred custody from their mother to their father.

TL livestreamed their day-to-day lives from his bedroom for months, broadcasting everything from sleeping, to eating, to hanging out together. Public interest in the case grew rapidly, fueled largely by the efforts of Tina Swithin and One Mom’s Battle.

Per the Court order, Swithin’s involvement escalated an already tense situation. Through her online platform, she amplified TL’s livestreams, shared the children’s names and home address, and even organized protests against the Court’s reunification order.

Jessica embraced this support, frequently sharing Swithin’s content on social media and thanking her for giving the children a “voice.”

However, this public campaign had serious consequences. The Court noted that Jessica’s collaboration with Swithin and One Mom’s Battle exposed TL and his younger sibling to significant danger.

Tina and Ty Tiktok — Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle Exploits Children’s Pain

In the Court’s Words

“Jessica’s campaign came with a darker side. By enlisting One Mom’s Battle and others in the cause, Jessica exposed TL and BL’s names, photographs, and home address to innumerable strangers on the internet. At least one of these strangers offered to secret the children away.”

Despite the court’s warnings and the lack of evidence to support her allegations of abuse, Jessica continued to leverage social media to persist in her claims.

This approach, while garnering public sympathy in some circles, also raised serious ethical concerns about the exploitation of her children’s privacy for the sake of advancing her narrative.

The Custody Case Timeline: A Breakdown

2015-2018 – Initial Custody Arrangement and Allegations

Jessica was awarded sole custody of TL and BL in 2015, while Brent was granted visitation rights. By 2018, BL accused Brent of sexual abuse, leading Jessica to secure a protective order and seek termination of Brent’s parental rights. TL later made additional allegations.

Despite thorough investigations, prosecutors declined to pursue charges against Brent due to a lack of evidence. In 2019, the court ordered reunification therapy to repair Brent’s relationship with his children, but Jessica and the children’s therapists actively resisted, undermining the Court’s efforts.

2019-2021 – Manipulation and Escalation

Jessica’s non-compliance escalated, with therapists allegedly coaching the children to fabricate or exaggerate abuse claims. By 2021, a forensic evaluation by Dr. Christy revealed no evidence of abuse, prompting Jessica to admit in court that her allegations were not true.

The Court ordered reunification therapy to continue, but Jessica’s sabotage persisted.

2022 – Blatant Custodial Interference & Non-compliance With Court Orders

Jessica’s disregard for court orders escalated significantly. She orchestrated disruptions during parenting exchanges and instructed the children to hide food in their backpacks and lock themselves in a bathroom for ten hours during a Thanksgiving visit with their father.

Despite these behaviors, Jessica consistently insisted that she had made every effort to comply with the Court’s directives.

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin – Undermining Experts and Misleading Families

Jessica’s False Testimony

During the trial, Jessica testified that she had done “everything she possibly can” to comply with the court’s reunification orders. TL echoed this sentiment, stating he “genuinely did not know” what more Jessica could do and that she had “done everything in her power.”

In a verified memorandum filed under oath after a failed overnight parenting exchange in July 2022, Jessica declared:

I “have not ever, and will not ever, interfere with the process” of reunification.

I have “only worked to positively influence the children in having a good relationship with Brent.”

I have “always encouraged the children to attend therapy and visits with a positive attitude.” (Why would Jessica always encourage children to attend therapy and visits with a positive attitude if she honestly believed that Brent – dad – was abusing them?)

As ruled in the Court order, “the Court, however, found Jessica’s testimony to be completely lacking in credibility. The Court stated that the trial record was replete with examples of Jessica actively working to undermine reunification.”

Her actions, including sharing details of parenting exchanges with third parties to organize protests, blatantly contradicted her claims.

The Court’s Findings Were Unequivocal

“Jessica is unlikely to encourage meaningful parent-time between Brent and the children, despite multiple investigations finding no evidence to support the allegations of abuse against Brent.”

Tina Swithin’s Role: Amplifying Falsehoods

Jessica eagerly endorsed One Mom’s Battle’s involvement, sharing posts on her own Facebook page and thanking Swithin for giving the children a “voice.” In reality, Jessica’s campaign—and Swithin’s amplification—sensationalized the family’s pain and exposed the children to further trauma and danger.

The Court Specifically Noted

“At least one of these strangers offered to secret the children away.”

“#286. TL testified that a woman named Tina (or someone on her behalf) from an organization called One Mom’s Battle obtained his email address on his bio and contacted him to help. (D2, pp 59-60).”

“While One Mom’s Battle may have reached out to TL initially, Jessica was the one who endorsed and promoted One Mom’s Battle’s media campaign about the case. That campaign would expose the names, photographs, and home address of the children to countless strangers on the internet.”

“One Mom’s Battle created a lengthy post on its Facebook page regarding the children including details about court orders.”

Swithin, without any professional degrees, training, or qualifications in family dynamics, mental health, or forensic evaluations, unlawfully inserted herself into the case.

Her involvement was based solely on the alienating mother’s one-sided account, with complete disregard for the actual facts.

Swithin offered herself up as an online influencer but without qualifications to provide opinions on the matter. She wielded her media platforms recklessly, thereby exacerbating the harm to TL and BL that was being inflicted upon them by their mother.

LEARN MORE: Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire

The Court’s Findings and Tina Swithin’s Silence

When the Court issued its Findings of Facts, based on concrete evidence, it ruled against Jessica as a non-supportive parent and highlighted her manipulative and harmful behavior.

After months of Jessica promoting TL’s videos, organizing protests, and engaging in the harassment and intimidation of professionals involved in the case, the Court issued its findings, concluding that it was Jessica, not Brent, who had jeopardized the children’s welfare and repeatedly placed them at risk.

Despite this, Tina Swithin failed to acknowledge the Court’s rulings or address the reality that Jessica, not Brent, was the abusive parent.

Following the publication of these findings, Tina Swithin fell silent. Despite the release of the Court’s detailed conclusions, Swithin made no attempt to acknowledge or address the documented evidence.

This pattern of exploiting narratives while ignoring established facts is a recurring pattern linked to Tina Swithin and One Mom’s Battle.

In the cases that Swithin has sensationalized and meddled in, what she conveniently left out were the extensive Court documents that carefully and systematically outlined years of psychological maltreatment of the children and custody interference on the part of the favored/alienating parent.

These documents are often on the Court’s websites for the public to view. We know there is a dark, tragic other side of the story because we have been able to obtain and review the documents.

Yet, Swithin has neither acknowledged nor tempered her meddling with facts. She merely latches on to one side of the story (the alienating parents side – the parent who is willing to exploit their children’s pain online as Jessica and the other have done) and regardless of the facts, exploits the families online to meet her own personal agenda.

Swithin’s actions in this case mirror a broader pattern of her behaviors. She seeks out sensational custody cases, exploits families’ pain for publicity and financial gain, and conveniently disappears when Court findings reveal the truth.

To this day, in spite of documented evidence, Swithin has not acknowledged the findings of abuse or custodial interference committed by any of the alienating parents whose causes she has sensationalized.

Critical Assessment of Tina Swithin’s Interference

Tina Swithin’s involvement in the Utah TikTok case epitomizes the dangers of irresponsible self-interest, self-aggrandizement, and bias.

By amplifying Jessica’s lies, interfering with Court orders, and exposing private family matters, Swithin recklessly violated the children’s privacy and profoundly exacerbated their trauma.

Swithin’s refusal to publicize the Court’s findings and the Court’s excoriation of her unlawful interference underscores the lack of accountability that she has thus far been unjustifiably awarded.

Unlawful interference that prioritizes sensationalism over truth and child safety is not child advocacy—it is child exploitation.

LEARN MORE: 5 Disturbing Things About Tina Swithin

Conclusion

The Utah TikTok case serves as a powerful reminder of the risks posed by third-party interference in legal custody disputes, especially when those involved are entirely unqualified to provide informed opinions on complex family dynamics.

Tina Swithin’s actions exemplify the catastrophic consequences of unlawful, self-serving involvement in Court proceedings. By contacting TL – a minor child, amplifying falsehoods, and undermining Court orders, Swithin not only betrayed the trust of the families she claimed to support but also inflicted further harm on vulnerable children.

Tina Swithin owes an apology to the father, children, and all of the other families affected by her reckless interference. Meddling in the sanctity of families’ lives, no matter how broken, is wrong on many levels.

But, if someone like Swithin must appoint herself as savior, you would hope that her meddling would at least be grounded in truth, accountability, and respect for the legal process—qualities Swithin has consistently failed to demonstrate.

Let this case serve as a cautionary tale about the profound harm that can result from unchecked and irresponsible meddling.