The story is presented as one of the newer and less discussed disputes in divorce cases in Israel. The fight is no longer only about money, child support, or visitation time. Exposure of children and family life on social media can become another flashpoint, with children pulled into it without choosing to be there.
The professional term for this is “Sharenting,” a blend of sharing and parenting. The practical question is who gets to decide whether a child’s photo or video is uploaded, especially when the post is part of a commercial campaign or reaches a large audience of followers. For one parent, social media is a legitimate tool for self-expression, income, or documenting life with the children. For the other, it can feel like an invasion of the child’s privacy, safety, and dignity that is hard to undo once online.
The article says this tension exists even in intact couples, but after separation it becomes far more volatile. Children may find themselves in a digital loyalty conflict, smiling for one parent while knowing the post may anger the other. The legal situation in Israel is described as a gray area, because there is no dedicated, clear provision in the Privacy Protection Law governing how parents may publish images and videos of minors online. Both parents are the natural guardians of their children, but there is no binding Supreme Court ruling directly on this issue.
Family courts decide these cases individually, based on factors such as the type of post, the extent of exposure, the child’s age, the content, whether it is commercial, and whether it harms the child’s welfare, privacy, or dignity. The article cites a recent Ashdod Family Court ruling that everyday posts showing children in routine activities do not necessarily require the other parent’s consent, but content that may harm the child or involve them in the parental conflict is not routine.
The practical obstacle is that a parent objecting to a post usually must hire a lawyer, spend tens of thousands of shekels, and urgently seek a restraining order in family court. By the time a hearing is set and the judge reviews the material, the algorithm may already have done its work, the video may have gone viral, and the child’s digital footprint may already be altered. The article argues that divorced parents should address the issue in advance, by including a “digital clause” in their divorce agreement to define what may be posted and what happens if one parent breaks the rules.
