Scrolling, screens and safeguarding: impact of social media ban on children proceedings

You’ve likely seen the government’s proposal to ban children under 16 from using social media. Beyond the headline, family lawyers are asking a more nuanced question: what does this mean for children proceedings?

What is being proposed?

The proposed ban would prevent children under 16 from creating or holding accounts on social media platforms. While the detail is still emerging, the scope is expected to be broad,  potentially capturing not only platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, but also sites like YouTube, which many children enjoy as an alternative to television — from endless Minecraft clips to channels like Mark Rober’s CrunchLabs (which, to be fair, is actually very good).

The rationale is rooted in child welfare. There is a growing concern linking unsupervised social media use to anxiety, poor sleep, and exposure to harmful content. The government’s position is clear: children need protecting from harms they are not yet equipped to navigate alone.

Why this matters in children proceedings

In private law children disputes, every decision, from where a child lives to how much time they spend with each parent, is measured against the welfare checklist.

Consider a scenario already playing out in court: one parent permits a 10-year-old unrestricted access to social media and YouTube, while the other objects. If the law says children under 16 should not be on these platforms at all, could allowing that access suggest a failure to prioritise their child’s welfare?

It doesn’t need to be deliberate. A parent who is unaware of what their child is accessing, or who fails to manage screen time effectively, may find their judgment questioned. As the Prime Minister put it, is it not similar to allowing a child to access the drinks cabinet?

Could it affect time spent with a parent?

Potentially, yes. If a parent is unable or unwilling to set appropriate boundaries around screen use, this could be viewed as a welfare concern.

This does not mean a single instance of a child watching YouTube at teatime will change living arrangements. The court takes a proportionate approach. However, where there is a pattern of poor digital supervision, or where a child’s wellbeing is being affected by unchecked online access, this could influence the court’s assessment of which parent is better placed to meet the child’s needs.

The wider question: children and smartphones

The proposed ban also raises a broader conversation about children and smartphones. Children as young as nine are routinely given mobile phones so they can contact the other parent following a separation, and by secondary school, having a phone is virtually universal.