As digital safety becomes a national priority, family courts may increasingly view online activity as part of a child’s overall welfare.
Last month the UK government announced that by Spring 2027, under 16’s will be prohibited from using social media platforms, including Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X. While this is primarily an online safety measure, its impacts will extend far beyond technology regulation.
Family courts have traditionally been reluctant to intervene in day-to-day parenting decisions, with matters such as bedtimes, diets and screen time generally left to parental discretion, unless there is evidence of harm being caused to the child. The social media ban may shift this position as concerns around children’s online wellbeing grow. Courts may increasingly view social media access not simply as a parenting choice but as a welfare issue. Family law commentators have suggested that disputes about smartphones, social media accounts and online boundaries could become a more prominent feature of private children law proceedings when the new restrictions take effect.
It is anticipated that many separated parents will disagree on issues such as their child’s access to social media and online presence. A statutory ban will introduce a new dimension to those disagreements as, if one parent permits a child to access prohibited platforms while the other seeks to enforce the restrictions, disputes may arise regarding whether that parent is acting in the child’s best interests.
In some cases, parents may see the court’s assistance through Specific Issue Orders or Prohibited Steps Orders where they cannot agree on a child’s online access and digital boundaries. The focus would not be on the social media account itself but whether a parent’s decisions adequately safeguard the child.
The government has justified the ban by reference to evidence of online harms affecting children including exposure to harmful content, cyberbullying, self-harm material, eating disorder content and unwanted contact from strangers. These safeguarding issues are live in Children Act proceedings, in which Cafcass, the local authorities and the courts must consider the risk of emotional harm to the child. As digital risks become more prominent and the government’s position has been made clearer, questions about a parent’s ability to protect their child online may increasingly form part of the court’s welfare assessment.
The significance of the proposed ban is therefore not that family courts will suddenly police social media usage. Rather, it reflects a broader societal shift whereby a child’s digital environment is now more formally recognised as an integral part of their overall welfare. As such, a parent’s approach to their child’s online safety is likely to become increasingly relevant in a court’s assessment of how they meet their child’s needs, and courts may soon find themselves considering whether parents are taking appropriate steps to comply with evolving online safety standards.
If you have any queries relating to child arrangements or any other aspect of Family Law, please contact a member of our Family & Matrimonial Team.
Article contributor, Liya Khwaja, Paralegal
