Facebook Evidence in Family Court

Published on
July 10, 2017
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Family Law

This blog is a follow-up with strategies to get Facebook evidence into (or kept out of) Family Court proceedings using general evidence rules.

Step 1: Proving Relevance

The first step to getting any evidence into the courtroom is proving it is relevant to the matter. The standard the court uses to determine relevance is whether, with or without a piece of evidence, the fact to be proven has a higher chance of being true. Most family law cases meet this burden where the evidence concerns conduct or statements about the other party.The most obvious example of this type of evidence of Facebook in family court would be a custody case where they presented a photo of a parent using illegal drugs, which is visibly relevant to their fitness (or lack thereof) as a parent.

Step 2: Balance of Competing Interests

Even if the evidence is relevant, it must still pass a balancing test of competing interests under the evidence rules. This rule requires the court to balance whether this particular piece of evidence is relevant to the issue. And whether the costs associated with allowing the evidence balances out in the interest of justice. If the cost of allowing the evidence into the courtroom is too high—because it's too harmful or prejudicial to the other party—the court will not allow it in even if it is relevant.The opposing party would have a valid argument regarding a photo of a parent using illegal drugs in our example. The opposing party could argue that allowing this evidence would unfairly prejudice them by portraying them as a criminal or drug addict. As such, in considering photos and their admissibility in family court proceedings, it is important to keep in mind that certain photos, although relevant, may not be admitted if the opponent can successfully argue that the photo will unfairly prejudice them, be a waste of the courts time, or confuse trial issues.

Step 3: Overcoming the Special Issue of Authentication

After proving that evidence is relevant in a family law proceeding, the party must properly authenticate the evidence. To authenticate evidence, the party submitting the evidence must show that the evidence is what they claim it to be. A printout of a screenshot of the Facebook post can prove it. And with a testimony of who knows the profile or photo.An example of authentication is when an ex-spouse tries to admit a Facebook photo of the mother drinking. Ex-spouse wants to introduce the photo as evidence of alcoholism, bad judgment and ill fitness on the mother's part. Anyone at the bar could verify the accuracy of a photo from the night in question.

Step 4: Hearsay as a Restriction on What is Allowed in the Courtroom

Think of hearsay as anything you have previously heard outside the courtroom later repeated inside the courtroom as true. The court defines an actual statement (verbal or written) or nonverbal conduct through action as hearsay. However, some exceptions overcome the hearsay rule and allow certain hearsay evidence in. In family law matters, you could use the following exceptions to allow Facebook posts in:

  • Party Admissions: a statement made by the person against whom the evidence presented allowed as admission. Therefore, the court does not consider it hearsay. It is one of the most common hearsay exceptions in family law cases.
  • Excited Utterances: statement made in response to a startling event while under the stress or excitement caused by the event.
  • Present Sense Impression is a statement explaining an event made while the person is perceiving it or immediately thereafter.
  • Statement of then existing physical or mental conditions. Statements relating to the past or present mental state of mind or physical state.
  • Business Records: Statements contained in a business record that they made and kept in theAn example of a Hearsay exception used in a family court proceeding is when a party posts a picture on Facebook of a new luxury car they just purchased after presenting to the court that their child support payments should be decreased. The party requesting the decrease in child support payments would object to the photo coming in as Hearsay; however, the opposing party could successfully argue—in defense of that objection—that the photo is not hearsay but a party admission because it was made by the other party and uploaded to their Facebook account.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

In the future, we may return and discuss some of the finer points in more detail. This evidence guide with examples for use in Family Court proceedings is a guide. Evidence is difficult, and this information is not intended to be sufficient information to proceed without the assistance of a licensed Maryland family law attorney. Whether you are going through a divorce, a custody battle, or any other family dispute, you need an attorney who will advocate on your behalf. An attorney that understands the implications that Facebook evidence can have on your Maryland family court matter and how it interplays with the applicable evidence rules. Contact Angel Murphy with The Murphy Law Firm, LLC today to schedule your family law matter consultation at (240) 493-9116 or angel@amurphylegal.com.If you are active on social media, Like us on Facebook @AMurphyLegal, Follow us on Instagram @AMurphyLegal, and on Twitter @AMurphy_Legal

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Authentication Process|Evidence|Evidence Guides|Facebook|Facebook Evidence in Family Court|Facebook Posts|Family Court Proceedings|Maryland Family Court|Maryland Family Law|Proving Relevance|Strategies on how to get Facebook Evidence

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.