Social media can become surprisingly complicated during a divorce, custody dispute, or other contested family law matter. People often focus on what they post—and rightly so—but overlook another important question: Who still has access to what they post?

When litigation begins, it can be wise to go through social media friends, followers, and contact lists carefully. Over the years, these lists can become filled with hundreds or even thousands of people. Some may be genuine friends. Others may be former coworkers, distant acquaintances, old neighbors, parents of children’s friends, or people you rarely speak with anymore.

Still others may have become social media contacts primarily because they were mutual friends of the couple. A divorce or family law case can be a sensible time to trim those lists.

This is not about being petty. It is about being prudent.

Social Media Access Is Real Access

It is easy to forget how much information a social media connection can provide.

Take Facebook, for example. A Facebook friend may see photographs, comments, family activities, trips, events, and interactions with other people. On Instagram, followers may see stories and photographs that reveal where someone is, what they are doing, and who they are spending time with.

During a contested family law case, information matters.

A photograph can be screenshotted. A post can be forwarded. A comment can be repeated. A vacation photo can reach the other party. Information about a new relationship can become a topic of discussion. A seemingly harmless post about work, money, travel, parenting, or the children can suddenly be viewed through the lens of litigation.

Once information is passed along, you cannot control where it goes next.

That is why reviewing a social media friends list during litigation is not necessarily an emotional decision. It can simply be a sensible safety measure.

Think About the Offline Equivalent

There is a useful way to think about this.

Suppose you were involved in a highly contested divorce. Would you routinely hang out with one of your soon-to-be ex’s close friends and give that person updates about your personal life? Would you show that person your photographs, tell them where you were going that weekend, discuss what you had been doing, and introduce them to the people you were spending time with?

Probably not. Yet, that is essentially what social media can do.

Being social media friends with someone who is particularly close to the other party can be a little like hanging out with your ex’s friend—except online, continuously, and with a convenient screenshot button.

That does not make the other person bad. It does not mean the individual is spying on you. It simply creates an unnecessary avenue for information to travel.

During active litigation, why take that risk?

Mutual Friends Can Become an Information Pipeline

Divorcing couples often have years of shared friendships and acquaintances. Neighbors, coworkers, parents of children’s friends, extended family members, and other people may be connected to both parties online.

Under ordinary circumstances, that may be fine. During contested litigation, however, circumstances are different.

A mutual friend can unintentionally become a conduit for information. A screenshot gets forwarded. Someone mentions what they saw online. A photograph gets shown to somebody else. A comment makes its way back to the other party.

The person passing along the information may not even intend to cause trouble. Human beings talk. Friends share things. People gossip. Someone may innocently say, “Did you see what was posted?” or “Did you see where they went this weekend?”

Suddenly, something posted for friends has reached the opposing party.

The prudent approach may be to reduce the number of people through whom that can happen.

Go Through the Entire List

Rather than focusing exclusively on obvious mutual friends, it can be worthwhile to review the entire friends and followers list.

That includes more than traditional social networks. Connections accumulate on professional platforms such as LinkedIn, too. Someone you connected with years ago may now be much closer to the other party than to you. The same can be true of followers and acquaintances on X and other social networks.

Who are these people? When did you last speak with them? Would you recognize all of them if you ran into them somewhere? Are they actually part of your life today? Did you know them independently, or were they primarily friends of your spouse? Are some simply acquaintances from an earlier chapter of your life?

If you rarely or never communicate with someone, there may be little benefit in allowing that person continued access to your personal information during litigation.

And if you scroll through your friends list and repeatedly find yourself asking, “Who is that?” the question may answer itself.

There does not have to be anything sinister about the person. The issue is whether that person has a good reason to access your information while you are involved in litigation.

Think of it as reducing unnecessary points of access.

What About Switzerland?

Then there are the mutual friends who want to be Switzerland. They like both parties. They do not want to choose sides. They want to remain friends with everybody. That is perfectly fine.

Nobody should necessarily expect mutual friends to choose a team because a relationship ended. In fact, staying neutral may be admirable.

But Switzerland may not need to be your social media friend during a contested case.

That is not punishment. It is not asking someone to choose sides. It is simply recognizing that a person who is actively maintaining a relationship with both litigants may not be the best person to have continuing access to your online life while the litigation is underway.

Switzerland can remain Switzerland. You can still say hello. You can still be friendly. You can still have lunch someday.

You just may not need to give Switzerland access to your photographs, posts, stories, comments, check-ins, activities, and other information while the case is pending.

You can always catch up when the case is over.

Likes and Comments Can Tell You Something

It can also make sense to pay attention to how mutual contacts interact with the other party online.

Suppose someone remains connected to you but regularly likes, comments on, and engages with the other party’s posts. That does not prove anything improper. Some people like virtually every post they see. Others genuinely want to maintain friendships with both parties.

But if someone is obviously maintaining a close online relationship with the person on the other side of your litigation, it is reasonable to ask whether that individual also needs access to your social media.

Again, this is not about loyalty. It is about access.

A person can remain your friend without being your Facebook friend. A person can wish both parties well without seeing both parties’ Instagram stories. Somebody can remain neutral without having a digital window into everything happening in your life.

True Friends Should Understand

Removing someone from social media does not have to mean, “You are no longer my friend.” It can simply mean, “While this litigation is pending, I am keeping my online circle smaller.”

True friends should understand that distinction.

People maintained friendships long before social media existed. Somehow, friendships survived without everyone knowing where everyone else ate dinner Saturday night.

You can still talk. You can exchange texts. You can have lunch. You can see each other at children’s activities, school functions, neighborhood events, or social gatherings. And when the case is over, you can reconnect online if you want.

If a friendship cannot survive temporarily losing access to someone’s social media account during a contested divorce, there may be a larger question about the friendship anyway.

Posting Less May Be Even Safer

Pruning a friends list is only one part of a sensible social media strategy.

Another option is simply to post less while the case is pending. Some people may decide to stop posting altogether. Others may temporarily deactivate one or more profiles. Broadcasting the details of a contested family law matter online rarely has much upside.

Even seemingly harmless posts can create unnecessary questions. Photographs can be taken out of context. A joke can look different when read months later. Posts about travel or purchases may become relevant to financial disputes. Comments about children, parenting, relationships, or the other party can become particularly problematic.

Sometimes the safest social media post during litigation is the one you never post.

Assume Anything You Post Could Eventually Be Seen

Even a carefully pruned friends list is not foolproof.

Privacy settings can help, but they cannot guarantee privacy. Friends can take screenshots. Messages can be forwarded. Information can be repeated.

A useful rule during a contested family law case is simple: Do not post something you would be uncomfortable having your lawyer, the opposing lawyer, a guardian ad litem, custody evaluator, or judge eventually see.

If you find yourself wondering whether a post could possibly be misunderstood, that may be a good indication that it does not need to be posted.

Even an innocent post can look very different when removed from its original context and presented in a family law case.

This Is About Prudence, Not Pettiness

Pruning social media during a contested family law case should not be viewed as declaring war on mutual friends. It is almost the opposite.

There is no need to confront people. There is no need to demand loyalty. There is no need to send messages asking why someone liked the other party’s photograph. There is certainly no need for a dramatic announcement that you are “cleaning up” your friends list.

Just quietly review the list. Consider removing people you rarely speak with, people you barely know, old acquaintances, people whose primary relationship was with the other party, and mutual friends who remain closely connected to both sides.

A smaller online circle means fewer opportunities for photographs, posts, comments, and personal information to travel somewhere you did not intend them to go.

That is not petty. During contested litigation, it can be prudent. The people who genuinely care about you will still be there when the case is over. Switzerland will still be Switzerland. You can reconnect, catch up, have lunch, and perhaps even become social media friends again.

But while litigation is underway, there is nothing wrong with closing a few unnecessary windows into your life. Privacy and peace of mind are worth protecting.

If you are going through a divorce, Stange Law Firm, PC can help you. Contact us online or at 855-5-FORYOU.