Beyond the ban: How social media restrictions fuel co parenting disputes

Written by Nicola Watson and originally published in The Times

The UK government plans to introduce a landmark social media ban for under-16s across Scotland and the rest of the UK, expected to come into force in Spring 2027. Once implemented, children will be blocked from accessing platforms that allow social interaction and posting material, including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X, and YouTube. Messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and platforms like Roblox and YouTube Kids will not be banned, though specific features in gaming could face restrictions.  While not banned from accessing social media, older teens aged 16 and 17 will have features like livestreaming and stranger communication turned off by default.

What begins as an attempt to safeguard a child’s wellbeing however can quickly become a new source of conflict between parents. From a family law perspective, it is expected that the social media ban will bring with it an increase in parental disputes between separating or divorcing parents.

Disagreements are rarely about one discrete matter, for example social media. They often reflect deeper differences in parenting style, communication, and trust. A parent advocating for the social media ban may be motivated by safeguarding concerns but can be perceived as overly controlling or inflexible by the other. A more permissive stance, meanwhile, may be seen as dismissive of risk or an attempt to be the “cool parent”. In the context of separation, even protective measures can become flashpoints.

Practical issues further complicate matters. Even where a restriction is agreed or ordered, enforcing it across two households is difficult. A child may encounter different rules in each home, or access social media through friends or extended family. A parent striving to uphold a ban may feel undermined if the other does not take the same approach, leading to allegations of inconsistency and placing further strain on co‑parenting arrangements.

The child’s perspective is also critical. For older children, social media will likely already be a huge part of their lives. Being excluded from platforms they have previously used, and which their peers may continue to access even after implementation of the ban, can lead to frustration or isolation, potentially impacting their relationship with the more restrictive parent.

For courts and practitioners, the challenge lies in balancing protection with practicality. The blanket prohibition proposed by the Government may offer clarity but fail to reflect the realities of a child’s day‑to‑day life, particularly as they approach adolescence. Equally, leaving the issue unregulated may expose the child to risk or fuel further disagreement.

A more nuanced approach may be required. Factors such as the child’s age, maturity, and understanding of online safety are all relevant, as is the parents’ ability to maintain consistent boundaries across households. Agreements that focus on how social media is used, for example looking at privacy settings, supervision, and time limits, may prove more workable than a simple ban.

As with many aspects of modern parenting, the real challenge is not simply restricting access but navigating disagreement. Without careful planning, a well‑intentioned ban may create as many disputes as it resolves.