Proposals to ban social media access for under-16s risk creating complex practical and legal challenges for families where parents live apart, according to family law experts.
Much of the debate around the potential ban has so far centred on online safety.
However, Karen Bishop, Head of Family Law at Palmers Solicitors, says digital communication has become an established part of how children sustain everyday relationships with a parent they do not live with and warns that restrictions could disrupt those connections.
“Indirect contact through video calls is now routine for a lot of families,” Karen explains.
“It is very common for court orders to provide for regular FaceTime or similar calls each week.
“Older children, teenagers especially, often communicate more informally, using messaging apps, gaming platforms and social media day to day to maintain relationships with a parent.
“Restrictions that limit access to those platforms could therefore affect the more informal interactions that help relationships feel natural rather than managed.”
The issue becomes more prominent where distance is a factor. Families living in different parts of the country or in different jurisdictions often rely heavily on digital communication to bridge the gap between in-person visits.
“If parents live far apart, being able to contact becomes much more important,” Karen says. “Limiting it is likely to hinder those relationships to some extent.”
The concern over contact is not limited to just a parent-child relationship, either. Children dealing with separation often rely on extended family members, friends and peers for emotional support.
“Children dealing with their parents’ separation need support,” Karen says. “A social media ban could restrict access to that support and I would question whether that serves a child’s best interests.”
Karen also believes new rules could open the door to fresh disputes between parents.
Differences in parenting style already sit behind many disagreements and restrictions could create further scope for conflict, particularly if parents interpret the rules differently.
“You could have one parent trying to enforce a ban while the other takes the view that it does not need to be policed so strictly,” Karen says.
“It becomes a question of what counts as a breach and what does not.”
In a legal system already dealing with high levels of conflict, Karen expects the issue could generate further applications if disagreements cannot be resolved.
She also highlights potential implications for the right to family life and for children’s privacy, particularly as they grow older and seek greater independence.
“Restrictions on communication through social media are likely to affect a child’s sense of privacy and expression, which becomes more important as they mature.”
She cautions against a blanket-ban approach, noting that children of the same age can have very different levels of understanding and maturity.
“One child of a certain age may be very different from another,” Karen says. “A single age threshold may not reflect those differences, so I do not believe a decision over social media access for children is something that can be determined by age alone.”
Instead, Karen believes education and supervision offer a more workable path.
“Courts tend to favour child-focused solutions,” she says. “Measures such as clearer guidance on online behaviour, parental controls and agreed time limits could address safety concerns without removing access entirely.”
The reality of how courts handle technology disputes also adds complexity.
Provisions about device use already appear in the details of some contact arrangements, particularly where one parent has previously restricted access during contact.
Even then, enforcement can be difficult because expectations vary widely between households.
“It often comes down to personal parenting choices,” she says. “What happens in one home may not be the same in another.
“Any new framework would need to set basic expectations while allowing flexibility, otherwise families may find themselves returning to court to resolve disputes about interpretation or alleged breaches.”
Families returning to court to resolve these disputes could further strain a system already facing delays.
Alongside those challenges, Karen raises a less-discussed issue regarding the use of video calls in high-conflict cases.
While widely used, they can sometimes feel intrusive, particularly where tensions remain high or there has been past abuse, as they allow a parent to see into the other household’s private space.
“That can be triggering in some situations and it further demonstrates the need for a thoughtful approach to contact arrangements.”
For Karen, the debate over a social media ban highlights the difficulty of regulating modern family life through broad rules. The way children communicate continues to change, often faster than policy or law can keep pace.
“Social media use is a complex grey area,” Karen says. “Whatever solution the Government decide on to protect children from the dangers of these platforms should not be decided without recognising how families actually maintain relationships.”