In today’s society, the growth of technology through means such as AI and social media plays a large role in how we communicate, express emotions, and share life events. However, when it comes to family law matters such as divorce, property disputes, and parenting arrangements, what you post online can have serious and often unintended legal consequences.
Whether you’re currently involved in family law proceedings or simply want to understand how social media intersects with family law, here’s what you need to know.
- Social Media as Evidence in Family Law Cases
Social media posts are now being used as evidence in family law cases, particularly in parenting disputes. The following examples have been used to demonstrate in family law proceedings, a party’s capability to care for their children, a party’s use of illicit substances, a party’s character or credibility and/or a party’s current relationship status:
- Posts or comments on social media that make derogatory or defamatory mention of another party of the proceeding;
- Posts or comments on social media that expressly refer to ongoing court proceedings, the judicial officer, the children’s lawyer, the police, etc;
- Screenshots of private messages sent across multiple social media platforms;
- Photos posted online of a parent partying, drinking to excess, using illicit substances, and/or engaging in dangerous/risky behaviour;
- Screenshots of online dating profiles or suggestive photos;
- Video blogs that reference children involved in proceedings, or another party to the proceedings.
The Family Court of Australia prioritises what is in the best interest of the child when making decisions that will impact them and when asked to make orders concerning children. Therefore, any social media posts or interactions online which go against this are likely to work against you in court. For example, in Marbow v Marbow[1], the Court was tasked with determining the best interests of children and private Facebook messages were examined to determine whether, and in what circumstances, the children should spend time with their mother. It is important that you seek legal advice as to the implications of your social media presence when you are seeking parenting orders.
- Court Restrictions: What You Can and Can’t Say Online
It is important for parents to be mindful of section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This section prohibits the publication of any information or images identifying parties involved in family law proceedings and if found to be in breach, can lead to severe penalties. When involved in family law proceedings it is important that you do not publish any identifying information about your proceedings to the internet.
You should also avoid any harassment or stalking through social media to a previous spouse or partner.
- Tips for Parties in Family Law Proceedings
We set out below some tips that may assist you if you are involved in parenting proceedings and are worried about the impact your social media presence may have on your case:
- Avoid posting anything related to your case or ex-partner;
- Tighten your privacy settings on all social media platforms but don’t assume anything is truly private;
- Speak to your lawyer before posting anything that could be interpreted in a negative light, particularly if you are involved in parenting proceedings;
- Refrain from venting online—find private, offline support instead or seek guided professional help; and
- Remember: Screenshots last forever, even if you delete the original post.
If your social media content is being put forward as evidence in your family law proceedings, it is important you seek legal advice as to the admissibility of the evidence before the Court.
Undergoing family law proceedings can be difficult at the best of times, especially in a digital world. If you are seeking legal advice, contact Michael Conley Lawyers who have decades of experience in family law and are a dedicated family law firm – contact us today on (02) 9223 5299 or email lawyers@michaelconley.com.au to book a consultation.
This Blog was written by Lilliana Fante, Associate.
[1] Marbow v Marbow [2012] FAMCA 24.