Here’s my honest take on this new detail:
Kylee claiming she broke up with Justin, while still following him on social media and recently liking a post where Justin calls out Linson for posting about the drama, significantly weakens her position in the custody battle and bolsters Linson’s narrative that she is not genuinely prioritizing the child’s safety.
Why This Matters in Family Court
In Hawaii (and most states), when deciding custody and parenting time under the “best interests of the child” standard, judges heavily weigh:
• Ongoing safety risks to the child.
• Whether a parent is willing and able to protect the child from harmful third parties (in this case, Justin).
• Credibility and consistency of each parent’s statements and actions.
• Any pattern of minimizing domestic violence or exposing the child to instability.
If Kylee is publicly saying “we broke up” (to look safer in court or to the public), but her social media behavior shows she’s still engaged with Justin—following him, liking his content, especially posts attacking Linson—it looks like:
• The breakup may be in name only (or very recent/temporary).
• She’s downplaying the seriousness of the February 26 Hana Highway incident (where Justin allegedly assaulted her while she held the toddler and also pinched/mishandled the child).
• She’s continuing to engage with someone who has an active Class C felony abuse of a family member case stemming from that event, plus his own prior protective order issues.
Courts do not like parents who say one thing in filings (“I ended the relationship, the child is safe”) but do another in real life. This kind of inconsistency is often seen as failure to protect the child or as using the breakup claim tactically to regain custody/make-up time advantages.
Linson’s team can (and should) use screenshots of the follows, the liked post, timing of interactions, and any other evidence (e.g., FaceTime rumors mentioned in discussions) to argue that the environment with Kylee remains unstable and risky. This directly supports enforcing or expanding the Colorado protective stipulation in Hawaii and strengthens any push for primary or sole custody.
How It Ties Into the Bigger Picture
• The recent Hawaii “Granted” stamp on Kylee’s make-up parenting time motion already frustrated Linson’s side because it lacked reasoning and appeared to override the fresh Colorado safety order.
• If Kylee is still emotionally or logistically tied to Justin while fighting to limit Linson’s access, it reinforces the perception you’ve described: using their son as leverage to hurt/punish Linson rather than making decisions based purely on Brooklyn’s safety and need for his father.
• Online commentary (TikTok, Reddit, Instagram) already highlights this pattern—Kylee being loud about allegations against Linson but quieter or inconsistent about holding Justin accountable.
Realistic Impact on Full Custody Chances
This development improves Linson’s odds of getting significantly more parenting time (potentially primary physical custody or a strong supervised/restricted plan for Kylee if risks persist). Full sole custody is still a high bar for a young toddler, but repeated evidence of:
• Exposure to Justin’s violence,
• Alleged minimization by Kylee,
• Continued social media engagement with Justin,
…can tip the scales toward the parent who has demonstrably acted protectively (Linson securing the Colorado order and pushing for boundaries).
Judges hate being misled. If Linson’s attorney presents clear evidence of the “broke up but still following/liking” contradiction at the next hearing, it damages Kylee’s credibility and makes it harder for her to argue the child is safe in her primary care.
Bottom Line
Yes, this looks like more of the same: actions not matching words. In high-conflict cases involving domestic violence allegations against a new partner, courts expect the custodial parent to actually create distance and prioritize the child’s safety—not just claim it for court filings or public statements.
Linson should make sure his legal team has timestamped proof of the follows and the liked post (screenshots with dates are powerful). This isn’t just “social media drama”—it’s relevant evidence of ongoing risk and potential parental unfitness on the safety issue.
The almost-2-year-old deserves a stable, low-conflict environment with real protection from violence, not to be caught between a parent who may still be entangled with an alleged abuser and a father fighting to shield him.
If Linson keeps building the evidentiary record (Justin’s criminal case updates, social media contradictions, witness accounts from Hana Highway, etc.) and pushes for a full evidentiary hearing or guardian ad litem, his position looks stronger than before. The system often responds better to persistent, documented proof than to he-said-she-said.
This whole situation remains messy and sad for the kid.