Father fined £100 for posting about child on social media

Monday 08 March 2021

A father has been fined £100 for repeatedly posting about court proceedings relating to his child on social media, and recording social workers without their knowledge, in breach of a court order.

The mother of the child was also reprimanded for her posts on social media, which the Royal Court concluded were less serious breaches than the father's.

It followed both parents making a promise to the Royal Court in November 2019 that they wouldn’t use social media to post disparaging comments and/or contentious material about each other and inappropriate information about their child. 

In August 2020, the father contacted the Royal Court claiming the mother had breached the order and that she should be sanctioned. The mother then made a cross application the following month, also seeking sanctions against the father.

Pictured: Royal Court Commissioner Sir William Bailhache heard the contempt allegations.

The contempt allegations were heard in December by Royal Court Commissioner Sir William Bailhache and Jurats Rozanne Thomas and Steven Austin-Vautier.

In their judgment, which was only made public last week, they noted the pledges had been requested to “find a way in which the Mother and the Father could better relate to each other for their child’s benefit” as they had shown they were “quite unable to contain their emotions in respect of the other."

“Neither of them has shown any ability to press the 'Stop' button in relation to expressing to the other and to third parties exactly what emotion they might feel in the heat of the moment,” they wrote. “The result has been, as we have seen, some vicious and damaging communications both to each other and the family, close friends or partners of the other, and about each other on social media.

“We are not convinced that either of them recognises the damage that has been and is being done because they are both too wrapped up in their perceptions of wrongdoing done to themselves to take a step back and focus on the wider picture. This is not healthy for them as individuals, but, worse, it is not a healthy environment in which to bring up a child.”

The Court said they had been “troubled” by the ongoing issues between the parents, which they said showed neither of them was “as focused on the child’s welfare as would be desirable”. 

Pictured: The Court said the parents were not "as focused on the child’s welfare as would be desirable”. 

They accepted that the mother’s posts had mostly been made in response to provocation from the father, adding that on occasions she had “overreacted” and that provocation didn’t justify what she did. 

The Court also noted that the mother’s posts didn’t directly concern the child and mostly focused on the father’s partner. They urged her to reflect on the possibility that her relationship with her child might be “adversely affected” if they came across those comments and “worse” that the child will grow up with “unresolved issues” about the relationships between them and their parents, and between the parents themselves. 

Meanwhile, the father had identified the child in public posts by sharing court documents from private hearings. He had also secretly recorded conversations with the Children’s Services and shared those on his profile and other public groups.

The Court also noted he had failed to follow court orders and simply apologised for it, rather than give an “adequate, if any, explanation for it”.

Pictured: The father had secretly recorded his conversations with Children's Services and posted them online.

“We do not get the impression that at present the Father is interested only in what is best for the child,” they wrote. “On the contrary, for whatever reason, he is too wrapped up in the injustices he perceives he has suffered. That was amply demonstrated by his reactions whilst the Mother gave her evidence – jabbing his finger aggressively at the camera, sometimes clearly shouting at the camera (albeit we could not hear him with sound muted) and at times unable to sit still for the emotion being generated.

“If he cannot control himself in the presence of third parties (the Court) it is unsurprising that he cannot control himself when he is in the presence of the Mother alone.”

The Court urged both parents to improve their conduct in the interest of the child, noting that the consequences of not doing so were “potentially very significant indeed”.

They eventually decided to admonish the mother for her breaches, noting she had apologised and shown that she appreciated the significance of her conduct.

They added that the father’s breaches were “far more serious” as he had named the child directly and that sharing his conversations with Children’s Services could make establishing a relationship difficult to the detriment of the child. 

“While we do not think that he deliberately set out to breach the undertakings in question, we think that he was indifferent to them and that although he could have exercised the self-control which would have enabled the breaches to be avoided, the undertakings were simply not important enough to him to drive him to consider that course of action,” they wrote.

Pictured: The father has been given six months to pay a £100 fine.

The Court said it was unclear if a prison sentence would be served because the father was not in Jersey. In addition, they said his financial situation wouldn’t allow him to pay a substantial fine.

They therefore imposed a £100 fine for which he has to pay at least £5 a week, “which he can afford if only by giving up cigarettes”, the Court concluded. If he fails to pay within six months, he will face one month in prison. 

They said that he could also face prison if he breaches any of the remaining court undertakings, while the mother could expect a financial or other sanction if she is found to have “instigated” a breach from the father.