Ask a family lawyer what parents fight about now, and the answer has shifted. Bedtimes and holidays are still there. So are phones, tablets, group chats, monitoring apps, and photographs posted without the other parent’s knowledge.
This is no longer a niche issue. Technology is now a normal part of raising a child, and it has become a normal part of custody litigation, with Florida law saying more than most parents expect. Section 61.13 already requires every parenting plan to address the technologies parents use with their children. A separate Florida statute now restricts social media accounts for minors outright. A parent who reaches for surveillance software to settle an argument can end up with evidence no court will consider. Getting the digital terms right at the drafting stage is far cheaper than litigating them later.
Why is screen time showing up in custody disputes at all?
Because it touches nearly every factor a Florida judge is already required to weigh. Section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, directs courts to decide time-sharing on the best interests of the child, using a long statutory list. Several of those factors map directly onto device use:
- the demonstrated capacity of each parent to provide a consistent routine, including homework, meals, and bedtime
- the capacity of each parent to keep the other informed of the child’s activities
- the mental and physical health of the child
- the willingness of each parent to adopt a unified front on major issues
A parent who lets a twelve-year-old scroll until two in the morning is not simply being permissive. In the record, that becomes a routine problem. A parent who quietly approves a new account is creating a communication problem. Screen time is rarely the whole case. It is very often part of it.
Does Florida law let a parenting plan control devices?
Yes, and the statute practically invites it. Section 61.13(2)(b) requires every Florida parenting plan to describe in adequate detail the methods and technologies the parents will use to communicate with the child. That language was drafted with phone calls and video visits in mind, but it opens the door to a far broader technology section. Form 12.995(a) is the standard template, and courts accept it, though parents may submit a customized plan instead. Technology provisions that survive contact with real life usually cover:
- separate limits for school nights, weekends, and school breaks
- device-free periods, most often meals and the hour before sleep
- who holds passcodes and app store credentials
- a requirement that new apps and new accounts need agreement from both parents
Notice the common thread. Each is specific enough to enforce. A clause saying both parents shall encourage healthy technology habits is a wish, not an order. A clause saying devices charge in the kitchen after 9:00 p.m. in both homes is something a judge can rule on.
How does Florida’s social media law change the conversation?
Section 501.1736, Florida Statutes, passed in 2024 as HB 3, bars children under fourteen from holding accounts on covered social media platforms and requires verified parental consent for fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds. A federal district judge blocked enforcement, the Eleventh Circuit stayed that injunction in November 2025, and the constitutional challenge brought by NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association is still moving through the appellate courts.
For separated parents, the statute creates a question it does not answer. Consenting for a fourteen-year-old is a decision, and under shared parental responsibility, decisions of that magnitude are meant to be made jointly. Settle in advance whether social media consent belongs to one parent, to both, or is deferred until a fixed age. One clarification matters here. The law regulates platforms, not households, and on its own it does not hand one parent a claim against the other.
Can a court order parents to monitor a child’s online activity?
Courts here regularly order shared co-parenting applications. OurFamilyWizard, TalkingParents, and similar tools are common in higher conflict files because they produce a tamper-resistant record of who said what and when. That is monitoring the parents, and it is uncontroversial.
Monitoring the child is different, and the line matters enormously. Parental control software installed openly on a device the parent owns, with the child’s knowledge and the other parent’s agreement, is ordinary parenting. Covert interception is where families get into serious trouble.
Florida is an all-party consent state. Chapter 934, the Florida Security of Communications Act, makes it unlawful to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications without the consent of everyone involved, and section 934.06 bars illegally intercepted material from use in any trial, hearing, or proceeding. In O’Brien v. O’Brien, 899 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), a wife installed spyware that copied her husband’s messages as they were transmitted. The Fifth District affirmed the exclusion of everything she captured.
For a parent tempted to install a hidden tracker, the calculation is blunt. The evidence may be worthless, the conduct may be a felony, and section 934.10 gives the other side a civil claim. Some states recognize a vicarious consent doctrine allowing a parent to consent on a young child’s behalf. Florida has not clearly adopted it, so that conversation belongs with a lawyer beforehand.
Who decides what gets posted about the children?
Sharenting has become a standard negotiation point rather than an afterthought. Absent a court order, either parent generally retains the right to post about the child, so protection has to come from the plan itself. The clauses that hold up are concrete:
- no images showing a school name, uniform, jersey number, or home street
- no photographs in swimwear or any state of undress
- no location tagging while the child is still there
- removal within a stated number of hours if the other parent objects
- for older children, the child’s own agreement before anything goes up
Two further points deserve attention. A monetized account changes the analysis completely, because a child in sponsored content raises consent and compensation issues a standard clause never reaches. And everything posted during a pending case is discoverable. Vacation photographs have an unfortunate habit of contradicting financial affidavits.
How do you keep a technology clause from expiring?
A plan written for a nine-year-old is useless the moment that child turns fourteen. Rather than returning to court each time the rules stop fitting, build the mechanism into the document:
- a periodic review clause, commonly every two years or at each change of school level
- graduated permissions tied to age rather than one fixed rule
- a mirror provision so identical limits apply in both households
That last item does most of the work. Digital rules collapse the moment a child learns that one house has no rules at all.
What happens if a parent ignores the technology terms?
Parenting plan provisions are court orders. Section 61.13(4) makes civil contempt, compensatory time-sharing, attorney’s fees, and mandatory parenting courses available for willful noncompliance. A sustained pattern can also support modification, although Florida requires a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances, which is a genuine hurdle.
Judges respond to patterns, not incidents. One late night of gaming is not a case. A documented year of ignored bedtimes, hidden accounts, and posts made after a written request to stop is.
Frequently asked questions
Can I stop my co-parent from giving our child a smartphone?
Not unilaterally. Where shared parental responsibility applies, a purchase of that significance is a joint decision, and a parent who acts alone can be brought before the court. Expect to show harm to the child, not simply disagreement.
My child is thirteen and has a social media account. Is that illegal?
The obligation under section 501.1736 falls on the platform, not the child or the parent. The account is not supposed to exist, and the platform carries the exposure. Practically, it is strong support for asking the court to require joint consent before any account is opened.
Can I use screenshots of my co-parent’s messages to our child?
It depends entirely on how you obtained them. A message your child voluntarily shows you is very different from one captured through software on a device you do not control. Chapter 934 governs, and the penalties for getting this wrong are severe.
Does a parenting plan have to include screen time rules?
No. The statute requires only the methods and technologies used to communicate with the child. Everything beyond that is optional, permitted, and increasingly common. Silence in the plan simply means the issue gets litigated later.
My co-parent posts our daughter constantly and ignores my requests. What now?
Put the objection in writing, then seek a specific provision from the court. Judges respond far better to identifiable risk, such as a public account, a visible school uniform, or followers the child does not know, than to general discomfort.
Talk to a family law team that understands the digital side
Technology terms are easy to draft badly and difficult to fix later. If you are negotiating a parenting plan, or your existing plan says nothing about devices, social media, or photographs, Serrano Farah Law LP can help you put provisions in place that a Florida court will actually enforce.
