Social Media - "Personal" and "Private" Information

[baldclub]

I just put this in my parenting plan:

"We agree to limit any online behaviour that disparages the other parent or our children. We are aware that what is said online untrue and damaging can be viewed as defamation. We are aware that what is posted in the public domain stays in the public domain. We will not subject our children to any public animosity."

[Tayken]

I just put this in my parenting plan:

"We agree to limit any online behaviour that disparages the other parent or our children. We are aware that what is said online untrue and damaging can be viewed as defamation. We are aware that what is posted in the public domain stays in the public domain. We will not subject our children to any public animosity."

We agree to limit any on-line behaviour that disparages the other parent or our children. We are aware that what is said on-line can be damaging when viewed by our family members. We are very aware that what is posted in the public domain can remain in the public domain. We will endeavour to not subject our family to any public animosity or information that may impact our children's health and well being.

Changed your paragraph slightly.

[hadenough]

Quote by oink: "Stbx has the habit of splashing our son's pic on the net and have mentioned numerous times my dislike for that."

Personally, I'm not a facebook fan or twitter etc. I don't think there's anything unusual about a parent posting pics of family/kids on facebook . . Isn't that what the majority of people on FB do? @oink: what issue do you have with regards to your son's mom posting pics of him on her FB page? Just curious if this is just a personal preference that she NOT post pics, or is she forbidden (by you) to do so?

[hadenough]

Great point to include in your Parenting Plan, baldclub.

[Tayken]

Great point to include in your Parenting Plan, baldclub.

Too bad the highly conflicted who often come to this site don't realize what they are doing as a result of their all-or-nothing thinking and attempt to gather negative advocates to support their "feelings".

Splitting America: How Politicians, Super PACs and the News Media Mirror High Conflict Divorce

[mcdreamy]

Quote by oink: "Stbx has the habit of splashing our son's pic on the net and have mentioned numerous times my dislike for that."

Personally, I'm not a facebook fan or twitter etc. I don't think there's anything unusual about a parent posting pics of family/kids on facebook . . Isn't that what the majority of people on FB do? @oink: what issue do you have with regards to your son's mom posting pics of him on her FB page? Just curious if this is just a personal preference that she NOT post pics, or is she forbidden (by you) to do so?

maybe she's posting pics of the 4 yr old smoking joints?

[Berner_Faith]

Like I said to you, go away and keep your nose out of my posts. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?

One person's unusual is another person's usual

Whatever your issue with her, the question is still valid... if this is something you wish to include, you have to demonstrate why it needs to be included.

One of the best thing about facebook is being able to share photos with friends and family, that are hours away. Unless the pictures exploiting your child, there is really nothing you can do. Seems like an point that would be better off dropped, than fighting over.

Oink- just a word of advice, take it or leave it, but you should be thanking most of these posters for questioning and pointing out your inconsistencies, as if your matter goes to court, you will be questioned and picked apart by the other side and possibly the Judge... in that setting you can't just tell them to go away and stop questioning you...think of this as a practice run.

[Tayken]

Whatever your issue with her, the question is still valid... if this is something you wish to include, you have to demonstrate why it needs to be included.

Actually, no you wouldn't because it is a directive to both parents. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

One of the best thing about facebook is being able to share photos with friends and family, that are hours away. Unless the pictures exploiting your child, there is really nothing you can do. Seems like an point that would be better off dropped, than fighting over.

Also, one of the good things about Facebook is that they actually have a policy regarding photographs of children under the age of 13. They are actually a socially responsible organization.

Just like the public school system that requires written parental consent to post student's artwork and their pictures in a public place.

For example:

http://www.peelschools.org/parents/p...nts/SEPS18.pdf

http://38.116.200.80/media/news2002/120301.htm

"Note to media:
The event is open to the media. The students participating in the event have consent to be filmed and/or photographed."

Consent cannot be given by a child under the age of 16. It is just a fact of law. In a joint custodial situation which is the law prior to any agreement or court order by the way, the school should obtain consent from both parents when parents are living separate and apart.

This is because the privacy of minor children is more important than either parent's "right", and any other third party's "right", to post picture of non-consenting minor children.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[hadenough]

Berner, you are correct in your observations. Once again, there's a poster on here who appears to think he can tell others what to do.

This thread was originally posted by Tayken, and it's one that we are all, as members invited to comment on freely. In other words, oink: I don't take instructions from you. I'm not your stbx or your step-daughter who no doubt have grown to live in fear of you.

The question I posed re: social media was a valid one. Perhaps others too, are curious.

Your continued anger and hostility when you hear something you don't like, quite frankly paints a sad picture in terms of the outcome for you, in my estimation.

Your matter has LITIGATION written all over it. Needless to say, when a Judge picks up on your anger and need to control (and it won't be hard to) you are not going to like the outcome.

I believe WretchedOtis invited you to come back in 2 yrs time (that's about how long you'll be in court, btw) to illuminate other members as to how this all worked out for you.

Reminds me of the Darren Mack case in the U.S.

There is no well crafted letter that you can submit that will hide your true intentions.

Furthermore: you are most welcome to utilize the 'ignore' feature on ODF, but no "Sir" you will not give orders to me about what and where I may comment on.

[Berner_Faith]

Actually, no you wouldn't because it is a directive to both parents. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Yes both parties will have to abide by the clause if it is court ordered, but the parent who uses facebook, does not have to agree to that clause. If it goes to court, the OP will have to prove why it is in the best interest on the child not to have pictures shared on facebook, the Judge isn't just going to order no facebook posting because one party says they don't like it.

[Tayken]

Berner, you are correct in your observations. Once again, there's a poster on here who appears to think he can tell others what to do.

I respectfully disagree. Consent to publish publicly accessible photos of minor children is governed by law and the policy of the company who is exposing this content.

Asking a private organization to respect governing law and parental consent is not "controlling". In fact, these kinds of paragraphs should not be needed but, alas there are many parents who have very little regard to how permanent posting something to the internet may be.

This thread was originally posted by Tayken, and it's one that we are all, as members invited to comment on freely. In other words, oink: I don't take instructions from you. I'm not your stbx or your step-daughter who no doubt have grown to live in fear of you.

Again, he is free to comment on your comments. Not sure where it is taking anyone in the argument. The challenge being that I think Oink is a "math" person versus a "feelings" person really.

The question I posed re: social media was a valid one. Perhaps others too, are curious.

Consent should be obtained by any third party for any picture of a minor child posted in a publicly accessible area even on the internet.

Your continued anger and hostility when you hear something you don't like, quite frankly paints a sad picture in terms of the outcome for you, in my estimation.

I see it more as annoyance than "anger" and "hostility". He would have to use a threatening term or threaten you to consider it "hostility". He hasn't and mostly what I see is annoyance more than anything.

Your matter has LITIGATION written all over it. Needless to say, when a Judge picks up on your anger and need to control (and it won't be hard to) you are not going to like the outcome.

Unless Oink presents the argument properly this will happen. It happens to many "math" people. Also, what Oink needs to consider is how relevant the argument on something like this would be.

I believe WretchedOtis invited you to come back in 2 yrs time (that's about how long you'll be in court, btw) to illuminate other members as to how this all worked out for you.

We have seen the results of possibly highly-conflicted parent's allegations against the other and their assertions made to this forum unfold in posted decisions on a few times now and how judges actually Rule when a parent doesn't encourage their children appropriately to attend access visits and when a high-conflict parent engages in slanderous comments against other professionals and the courts.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Tayken]

Yes both parties will have to abide by the clause if it is court ordered, but the parent who uses facebook, does not have to agree to that clause. If it goes to court, the OP will have to prove why it is in the best interest on the child not to have pictures shared on facebook, the Judge isn't just going to order no facebook posting because one party says they don't like it.

The better solution is to supply Facebook the court order and ask for the content to be removed in accordance with public law and their own company policy. No need to go to court.

You don't need to even have the clause in the order. An order for joint custody is all that is needed.

http://www.ehow.com/how_12034594_rep...ermission.html

Good Luck!
Tayken

[hadenough]

Hi Tayken

To clarify: quote by oink "Like I said to you, go away and keep your nose out of my posts. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?" (Directed at me)

A review of some of his posts do in fact display anger and hostility, and not simply annoyance. OhMy captured several of his quotes in the "Marijuana Poll." Another thread (quite telling) was removed entirely.

The poster thinks he can tell other members (not just me) when/how/if/where to post on this board. I shudder to think how he orders people around in his personal life. This forum is for all members. As in life, people's opinions differ. Some opinions are more informed than others but the world is full of different people and this forum is a reflection of that. Topics are up for debate, people ask questions, share their views. I like to think of it as similar to a "Talk Radio" show. AM640 is great, as an example *in my opinion.*

[Tayken]

Hi Tayken

To clarify: quote by oink "Like I said to you, go away and keep your nose out of my posts. What part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?" (Directed at me)

How is this (a) angry and (b) threatening though?

The poster thinks he can tell other members (not just me) when/how/if/where to post on this board. I shudder to think how he orders people around in his personal life.

He is in the military, based on disclosures provided an officer. He has a profession of "ordering people" around. But, the comment you are relying upon to bring a negative inference is really minor.

"keep your nose out of my posts" - Really? I highly doubt you take offense to that comment. I have seen others level much stronger comments against you and you don't counter label them as "angry" and "threatening".

Good Luck!
Tayken

[Berner_Faith]

The better solution is to supply Facebook the court order and ask for the content to be removed in accordance with public law and their own company policy. No need to go to court.

You don't need to even have the clause in the order. An order for joint custody is all that is needed.

How to Report Someone on Facebook for Having Pictures of Children on There Without Permission | eHow.com

Good Luck!
Tayken

From your link...

Facebook allows you to make friends and share information about yourself with others on your wall, but privacy issues limit what can and cannot be posted online. No one under the age of 13 is allowed to have a Facebook profile, and pictures of a person under that age cannot be posted without the consent of the parent or legal guardian. If someone is posting pictures of your child online, you have the legal right to demand they be removed. If this person still refuses to take the photo down, submit a request using the Facebook privacy policy.

Read more: How to Report Someone on Facebook for Having Pictures of Children on There Without Permission | eHow.com How to Report Someone on Facebook for Having Pictures of Children on There Without Permission | eHow.com

The mother (or father) is the parent... I don't see where it states that both parents consent is required? Also, it is my understanding joint custody applies to major decision making, in my opinion sharing pictures is not a major decision. In my personal opinion, it seems like the OP is nit-picking on certain points. There are more important points to focus on than facebook pictures.