03/29/2026
⚖️ Delaware Judge Rejects Request to Restrict Parent’s Social Media Posts in Custody Case
A Delaware Family Court judge has denied a request to prohibit a father from posting about his custody case on social media, ruling that such a restriction would violate constitutional free speech protections.
Judge Eliza Hirst issued the decision in the case only identified as MR v. CH. As is standard in Family Court matters involving children, the names of the parties are partially redacted to protect their privacy.
According to court records, the mother petitioned the court to prevent the father from discussing her and their child online. The request sought to broadly limit the father’s ability to post about the ongoing custody dispute on social media platforms.
In her ruling, Judge Hirst determined that granting such a request would amount to a form of “prior restraint,” a legal doctrine that restricts speech before it occurs. Courts have consistently held that prior restraints are rarely permissible under the First Amendment, except in extreme circumstances.
The court further found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the father’s social media activity had caused harm to the child or posed a clear and immediate risk. Without that level of proof, the judge concluded that the requested restriction could not be justified.
The case involves parents who share joint legal custody, with primary placement awarded to the mother. Court documents also indicate that a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order is part of the broader legal history between the parties.
While the judge denied the request to restrict speech, the ruling makes clear that limits still exist. The court retains the authority to intervene if future conduct includes harassment, threats, or the disclosure of sensitive or protected information.
The decision underscores the ongoing challenge courts face in balancing the protection of children and family privacy with the constitutional rights of individuals involved in custody disputes.
