For many families, photographs of children have become part of everyday social media. Birthdays, holidays, school events and sporting achievements can be shared online within seconds, often without much thought about where the image may eventually travel.
At the same time, more parents are questioning whether their children should appear online at all. Their concerns may include privacy, location tracking, identity theft, unwanted attention and the possibility that photographs could be copied, altered or used to create artificial images. There is also a more personal question: should a child inherit an extensive online history before they are old enough to understand or consent to it?
The Information Commissioner’s Office encourages families to make online privacy part of everyday conversations with children. Its guidance highlights the importance of privacy settings and helping children understand what personal information is being collected, shared and made visible to others.
These decisions can become particularly difficult after separation. One parent may view posting photographs as harmless, while the other may believe that any public sharing creates an unacceptable risk. The disagreement may become sharper where one parent has a public profile, a large social media following or an account that can be seen by strangers.
The starting point is parental responsibility. Under the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility means the legal rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that a parent has in relation to their child and the child’s property.
More than one person can hold parental responsibility at the same time. The Act allows a person with parental responsibility to act independently in many matters unless the law specifically requires the agreement of another person. This means there is no blanket legal rule requiring both parents to approve every photograph before it is shared.
However, parental responsibility is not an unrestricted personal entitlement. It must be exercised for the benefit of the child. A decision can be challenged where another person with parental responsibility believes it is contrary to the child’s welfare.
There is therefore no straightforward rule that one separated parent always has the final say about social media. Equally, an objection from one parent does not automatically create a permanent legal ban. The circumstances matter, including what is being posted, who can see it, whether the child can be identified and whether publication creates a particular welfare or safeguarding concern.
A photograph shared privately with a small group of relatives is likely to raise different considerations from an image published on an open account alongside the child’s full name, school, regular location or details of where they live.
Parents should also think about the nature of the image. Photographs showing a child in swimwear, school uniform, at home or during an upsetting or embarrassing moment may create different risks from an ordinary group photograph. Details contained in the background, including school badges, house numbers, street names and vehicle registrations, can reveal more than the person posting intended.
Where parents disagree, the first sensible step is usually to discuss a clear and specific social media arrangement. A workable agreement might cover whether either parent can post, which platforms can be used, whether accounts must remain private, whether the child’s name or location can appear and whether photographs must be approved before publication.
It may also deal with relatives. Grandparents, new partners and extended family members may share images without appreciating that the parents have agreed to keep the child off social media. A consistent family rule can be more effective than trying to remove photographs after they have already circulated.
The child should be included in the conversation where their age and understanding make this appropriate. Asking before posting can help them learn about consent and online privacy. It also gives them the opportunity to say that an image feels embarrassing, intrusive or unsafe.
A child’s view does not automatically determine the legal outcome. However, if the dispute reaches court, the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings are among the matters the court must consider in light of their age and understanding. The views of an older child are therefore likely to be especially important, although welfare remains the court’s overriding concern.
If the parents cannot resolve the disagreement directly, mediation may help them reach a written agreement without starting court proceedings. The government provides information about ways to make child arrangements outside court, including mediation and other forms of dispute resolution.
Mediation will not be appropriate in every situation, particularly where there has been domestic abuse, coercive control or an urgent safeguarding concern. Exemptions can apply to the usual requirement to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting before making a court application.
Where agreement is impossible, either parent may ask the family court to decide the issue. Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 provides two orders that may be relevant: a prohibited steps order and a specific issue order.
A prohibited steps order prevents a particular step connected with parental responsibility from being taken without the court’s permission. In a social media dispute, a parent could ask the court to prevent specified photographs, information or other material about the child from being published.
A specific issue order allows the court to determine a particular question about the exercise of parental responsibility. It can be used where parents need the court to decide a defined disagreement about their child.
The choice of order depends on what the applicant wants the court to do. If the aim is to stop publication, a prohibited steps order may be appropriate. If the parents need a wider decision about how the child’s online presence should be managed, a specific issue order may be considered. More than one order can be requested where necessary.
The court will not decide the dispute by measuring which parent objects most strongly. Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. The court will consider the effect of the proposed publication on that particular child rather than applying a universal rule that all parental posting is either acceptable or harmful.
Relevant considerations may include the child’s age and wishes, the type of images involved, the audience, the amount of information already available online, any safety concerns and the possible emotional or practical effect on the child. The court can make a narrowly focused order rather than imposing a complete ban if a more limited restriction is sufficient.
Applications are normally made using form C100. GOV.UK confirms that the current court fee is £270, although help with fees may be available for people receiving certain benefits or living on a low income.
The government’s child-arrangements court guidance says these applications currently take around 10 months on average, depending on the circumstances and location. Urgent cases can be treated differently, but simply disliking a post will not necessarily make an application urgent.
Social media disagreements should therefore be addressed early. Waiting until dozens of photographs have been posted, shared and copied can make the practical problem much harder to contain. Parents may also damage their position if they use the child’s image as part of a public argument about the separation.
The strongest approach is usually the one most closely focused on the child rather than either parent. That means considering whether the publication is necessary, what it reveals, how widely it may spread and how the child might feel about it in the future.
A photograph may take only seconds to upload, but the resulting digital footprint can last far longer than the disagreement that produced it.
This article covers the law and court process in England and Wales. Different law and procedures apply to parenting disputes in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
