Tag: family law social media

Social Media and Kanye’s Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Anyone wanting to know whether your social media posts could be used as evidence in your divorce should be following recent news. You would learn that Kanye West’s social media posts would likely become probative exhibits in Kanye’s divorce and child custody case.

Social Media Divorce

Meta Divorce

Kardashian, 41, filed for divorce from West, 44, in February 2021 after seven years of marriage. The two share four children together.

Some news outlets have been reporting that West has been going after Kardashian’s new boyfriend, Pete Davidson, in a flurry of Instagram posts, which Kanye later tries to delete.

Kanye has also shared text messages from Kardashian on his account and speaks about their divorce on the social media app.

When it comes to the divorce proceedings, social media posts are “fair game” and can be used in custody battles. Kanye West’s rants about his divorce could hurt his arguments on any custody and other parenting issues since he is clearly willing to put his own needs to express his feelings over their best interests

Florida Social Media and Divorce

I’ve written about the widespread use of social media in society, and how that impacts family law cases – especially when it comes to authenticating documents in a divorce court.

Some exhibits are so trustworthy they don’t even require a witness to authenticate. Evidence Rule 201 lists matters which a court must judicially notice, meaning a judge does not have discretion but to admit indisputable evidence.

The list is short and includes laws of the Congress and Florida Legislature; Florida statewide rules of court, rules of United States courts, and U.S. Supreme Court rules.

Rule 202 includes even more matters, but also provides judges leeway in deciding whether or not to take judicial notice. For example, the statute allows a court to take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court”, and facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”

But with the widespread use of fake social media accounts, you have to start to wonder whether the genuineness assumption of evidence in family court still stands. Anyone can set up a fake Kanye Instagram account.

The increasing use of electronic evidence at trial, and the ease with which it is impersonated and manipulated, pressures us to bolster foundational evidence more than ever.

Ye

Divorce proceedings typically entail a decision on custody, although Kardashian and West have agreed on joint custody of their children to date. However, if there were to be a custody battle, social media posts that don’t foster a healthy parent-child relationship could affect a judge’s decision.

Some social media posts can reflect a parent’s failure to facilitate and encourage a
close and continuing parent-child relationship with the other parent and that can impact the court’s ultimate determination of shared parental responsibility and timesharing.

Criticizing the other parent’s parenting, disparaging on social media a parent’s new significant other, especially when children are old enough to access and read social media, does not help facilitate a close and continuing parent-child relationship.

If one parent is disparaging the other parent on social media, that could be used as proof that Kanye, for example, is not willing to facilitate a close relationship between the children and Ms. Kardashian when he is with the children.

For his part, West has addressed criticism from many that he was attempting to besmirch Kardashian by divulging private messages and maintained that he has owned up to the mistake and is learning to better manage his impulses.

“Thank everybody for supporting me,” West recently wrote. “I know sharing screen shots was jarring and came off as harassing Kim. I take accountability. I’m still learning in real time. I don’t have all the answers. To be good leader is to be a good listener.”

In a separate post, West, also known as “Ye,” shared a screenshot of a comment that read: “That’s what a real man does; fight for your family Ye.”

“THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF MY FAMILY,” West wrote for his 12.6 million followers. “MY FAMILY MEANS MORE TO ME THAN ANY OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENT IN LIFE.”

Kim could try asking the court for a gag order restricting both parties from airing their grievances publicly during the divorce, but free speech is valued in this country.

The FOX news article is here.

 

Social Media and the Kardashian Divorce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

For singer Kanye West, keeping up with his Wife Kim Kardashian on social media during their divorce just became a little harder. Forget the pandemic, the real news is that Kanye unfollowed Kim on Instagram! Few realize that social media can play an important role in a divorce.

divorce social media

Gold Digger?

Kim and Kanye married in Florence, Italy on May 24, 2014. A source reported that the couple had been going to marriage counseling. However, after counseling, Kim filed for divorce this year. The couple likely has a prenup, given the money at stake and considering it’s Kardashian West’s third marriage. Additionally, their biggest assets may be separately owned and operated businesses.

Their divorce could get more complicated when it comes to their shared real estate assets — including their Calabasas mansion, with an estimated $30,000 bathroom sink.

Kanye may the wealthier of the pair, with his net worth tied up in Yeezy, with an estimated value of $1.26 billion. His shoe brand is known for sneakers that cost upwards of $200 a pair. Kim’s wealth is believed to be invested in KKW Beauty with an estimated value of $500 million.

Social Media and Divorce

I’ve written about the widespread use of social media in society, and how that impacts family law cases – especially when it comes to authenticating documents in a divorce court.

Some exhibits are so trustworthy they don’t even require a witness to authenticate. Evidence Rule 201 lists matters which a court must judicially notice, meaning a judge does not have discretion but to admit indisputable evidence.

The list is short and includes laws of the Congress and Florida Legislature; Florida statewide rules of court, rules of United States courts, and U.S. Supreme Court rules.

Rule 202 includes even more matters, but also provides judges leeway in deciding whether or not to take judicial notice. For example, the statute allows a court to take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court”, and facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”

But with the widespread use of fake social media accounts, you have to start to wonder whether the genuineness assumption of evidence in family court still stands. Anyone can set up a fake Kardashian Instagram account.

The increasing use of electronic evidence at trial, and the ease with which it is impersonated and manipulated, pressures us to bolster foundational evidence more than ever.

Stronger

Kanye previously unfollowed Kim and her sisters on Twitter in June. He confessed to being unfaithful during their seven-year union in a song:

 “Here I go actin’ too rich / Here I go with a new chick / And I know what the truth is / Still playin’ after two kids / It’s a lot to digest when your life always movin.”

Social media is the cause behind one in seven divorces. Social media can not only cause marriages to end — they can impact your divorce and weaken your case.

One of the first places your spouse’s divorce lawyer will look for evidence is online. Even seemingly harmless pictures or statements can have a legal impact later. When you are disputing child custody, what you post on Facebook can make you seem unfit.

It can be frustrating to know the latest legal motion in your divorce was the result of something you posted online. Although you don’t have to remove your social media presence during a divorce, caution in posting is advised.

While your divorce case is pending, limit your posting online. Be careful when discussing things with your soon to be Ex and their friends. Also, be careful of the kinds of photos you post online as they can hurt your custody case.

Kanye has had a complicated relationship with social media. In July 2020, he claimed on Twitter that he had been trying to divorce Kardashian after she “met with Meek [Mill]” nearly two years prior to discuss prison reform.

Kanye referred to Kim’s mother, Kris Jenner, as “Kris Jong-Un”.

Conversely, Kim is playing things well. She publicly supports Kanye after separating, defends him, and asked her fans to be kind to him as he has bipolar disorder.

“He is a brilliant but complicated person who on top of the pressures of being an artist and a black man, who experienced the painful loss of his mother, and has to deal with the pressure and isolation that is heightened by his bi-polar disorder. Those who are close with Kanye know his heart and understand his words do not align with his intentions.”

The Fox News article is here.

Your Social Media Divorce Farce

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

When your divorce becomes social media fodder because you yourself are posting things online about it, what are the risks? Lifestyle and mommy blogger Eva Amurri Martino – who has posted to her followers that she and her husband are going to “lovingly part ways as a couple” (aka divorce) – may find out the hard way.

Social Media Divorce

News Feed

Eva, the daughter of Susan Sarandon, and her husband who is a former soccer player, announced their split with simultaneous posts on both their Instagram and Twitter accounts. In the photo, they are beautiful and laughing on their porch with their two adorable young children, despite the somber message.

Eva is 23-weeks pregnant with the couple’s third child, making the beautiful laughing picture and self-described “lovingly parting ways” description seem like a total farce.

The couple also has been remodeling a home and both posted declarations of love on their anniversary less than a month ago. Her followers immediately began speculating what happened on various internet forums, and they have become tabloid fodder.

Florida Divorce and Social Media

Eva Amurri Martino’s decision to “lovingly part ways” and broadcast her divorce to the world is part of the recent phenomenon of the “divorce selfie” and other social media announcements.

I’ve written about the widespread use of social media in society, and how that impacts family court cases. Social media evidence is increasingly becoming important at trial – especially when it comes to authenticating exhibits in family court.

Some exhibits are so trustworthy they don’t even require a witness to authenticate. Evidence Rule 201 lists matters which a court must judicially notice, meaning a judge does not have discretion but to admit indisputable evidence.The list is short, and includes laws of the Congress and Florida Legislature; Florida statewide rules of court, rules of United States courts, and U.S. Supreme Court rules.

Rule 202 includes even more matters, but also provides judges leeway in deciding whether or not to take judicial notice. For example, the statute allows a court to take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court”, and facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”

With evidence of foreign governments using social media to spread disinformation and propaganda, and the widespread use of fake social media accounts, you have to wonder whether the genuineness assumption of evidence in family court still stands.

Create a Post

Eva and Kyle’s divorce raises an interesting question: when your brand is your life, how do you post divorce information? Influencers usually handle this in three ways: They ignore it and “keep it off the feed,” they offer an unfiltered look at their hardship, or they go dark until the storm passes.

Eva has kept up her usual posts and aesthetic, but mixed in the realities of her new situation. Her activity over the past week features her usual glam, well-lit Instagrams, but with divorce talk sprinkled in. For example, she hosted a “slumber party” for her girlfriends, complete with makeup, pearls, and matching silk pajamas. She also has been posting family shots, now missing a member.

For his part, Kyle posted this absolutely heartbreaking post the other day. Something about how peppy and lovely it looks kind of kills me?

If you’re considering divorce — even if you plan to file for divorce online and expect it to go amicably — take some precautions. Lockdown privacy settings for example, and be cognizant that your posts could be used against you.

Even if things are moving forward in an amicable fashion, you don’t want to turn your divorce into a contested legal battle. That may include keeping your divorce off Facebook and Twitter. If you have children, consider an agreement that child-related social media posts are limited especially photos and posts that give insight into children’s personal lives.

Influencers like Eva, who have used their children to create a family brand, may have little choice but to make glowing comments such as “lovingly parting ways” while 6-months pregnant and in the middle of a remodeling project.

The Buzzfeed article is here.

 

Social Media, Family Law, and Russian Hacking

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Hypothetically, if Vladimir Putin opened fake social media accounts in your name to ruin your family law custody case, what would happen? An unfortunate Florida woman, who was recently sentenced to five months in jail for a few posts on her Facebook page, found out the hard way.

Social Media Family Law

News Feed

The Father, Timothy Weiner, had been warned. The judge in his custody case ordered him to stop harassing his ex-wife on Facebook. The family court judge issued two orders to keep any information about the case off social media and prevent family members from publishing information about the custody action on social media.

“Neither parent,” Pasco Circuit judge Lauralee Westine wrote in her order after the September hearing, “shall disparage or threaten the other parent on social media.”

But a week later, a photo of his ex-wife surfaced on a father’s rights Facebook page called “Mothers who abuse kids.” Weiner hit the “like” button. Fast forward to this summer. The Father’s new wife, Jessie Weiner, who is not a party to his custody case, was not served with the order.

In one of Ms. Weiner’s Facebook posts, sensitive family court documents concerning her Husband’s child from his previous marriage were posted. Court records indicate that someone on Weiner’s Facebook even shared an old news article about when her husband was jailed over a Facebook post.

The uploaded Facebook documents had to do with the ongoing family law custody case between Weiner’s husband and his ex. The family judge was not amused, and took swift action. She entered an order directing Ms. Weiner to show cause why she should not be held in indirect criminal contempt for failing to obey her orders.

Ms. Weiner received the order to show up in court the day before the 4:30 p.m. hearing that had been scheduled. Her lawyer, whom she retained on the same day as the hearing, argued for dismissal, for the judge’s disqualification, and for a continuance.

“Next thing I know, I hear five months in the county jail. “No matter what I said, I was guilty.”

The family judge denied all of her motions, found Ms. Weiner guilty of indirect criminal contempt, and sentenced her to five months’ confinement in jail for contempt of court.

What if, as Ms. Weiner argued, the social media accounts were not authentic, i.e. she didn’t make the Facebook posts?

Florida Authenticity and Social Media

I’ve written about the widespread use of social media in society, and how that impacts family court cases. Especially when it comes to authenticating documents in family court.

Some exhibits are so trustworthy they don’t even require a witness to authenticate. Evidence Rule 201 lists matters which a court must judicially notice, meaning a judge does not have discretion but to admit indisputable evidence.

The list is short, and includes laws of the Congress and Florida Legislature; Florida statewide rules of court, rules of United States courts, and U.S. Supreme Court rules.

Rule 202 includes even more matters, but also provides judges leeway in deciding whether or not to take judicial notice. For example, the statute allows a court to take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court”, and facts that are not subject to dispute because they are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned.”

But with the Russian election scandal, and the widespread use of fake social media accounts, you have to start to wonder whether the genuineness assumption of evidence in family court still stands.

Governments manipulate photographs. It is not unheard of for spouses to hack computers and borrow smartphones to impersonate their owners’ texts. Anyone can set up a Facebook page, email, Instagram, or twitter account.

The increasing use of electronic evidence at trial, and the ease with which it is impersonated and manipulated, pressures us to bolster foundational evidence more than ever. Unfortunately for Ms. Weiner, she was jailed before she could even challenge the evidence.

What’s on your mind?

The Second District Court of Appeals had no trouble quashing the contempt order and freeing Ms. Weiner . . . after she served a month in jail.

First, the order violated Ms. Weiner’s due process rights because she was not subject to or served with the court order that she was accused of disobeying.

Second, the order to show cause was never served on Ms. Weiner within a “reasonable time allowed for preparation of the defense,” as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ms. Weiner’s name did not appear in the order’s service list, and it is undisputed that she received the order the day before the hearing and did not engage counsel until the morning of the hearing.

Finally, the trial judge should have disqualified herself because the contempt conduct involved disrespect and criticism of the judge.

This rule assures that a person cited for a contempt of court which involved a criticism of a judge, would not be tried before the judge who was the subject of the criticism.

The opinion is here.