Not so long ago, disputes in divorce proceedings tended to revolve around bank statements, diaries, or hand-written letters. Today, this looks very different because almost every separating couple leaves behind a dense trail of digital material, such as WhatsApp conversations, shared calendars, cloud-stored photos, social media posts, location histories, and thousands of emails. This has led to a small and growing proportion of this material being deliberately manipulated by a disgruntled ex in order to gain the upper hand in divorce proceedings.

This isn’t simply about how easily digital material can be altered, it’s about how convincingly it can be made to appear genuine, and how this material can be used in sensitive areas such as disputes over children, allegations of coercive control, or financial claims where credibility matters enormously. Understanding the types of faked digital evidence, how they might be used, and how courts approach disputed information is increasingly essential in family litigation.

What are the types of faked digital evidence used in family law proceedings?

Digital manipulation can range from crude to highly complex with the following tending to appear most often:

Light-touch alterations: edited messages and emails

This includes:

  • Changing the date on a message to imply a conversation happened earlier or later than it did.
  • Deleting parts of WhatsApp threads, making it appear as though the other party sent something aggressive when the surrounding context is missing.
  • Screenshot stitching, which allows someone to piece together fragments of genuine conversations in a false order.

These are the most common forms of digital manipulation because they require almost no technical skill. Free editing tools make it simple to remove or add text bubbles in a messaging app screenshot.

Fabricated messages or accounts

Some individuals go further, creating:

  • Fake email addresses that mimic a partner’s
  • Messaging accounts in the name of the other party
  • Fabricated screenshots of conversations that never existed

These cases can be more difficult to uncover because, unless the allegation is serious enough to justify forensic analysis, the deception may not be immediately obvious.

Manipulated photographs and metadata

Photos can be altered to change:

  • Locations (by editing the GPS metadata)
  • Times and dates
  • What appears within the image

For instance, a spouse might attempt to show that the other parent was drunk at a time when they were responsible for childcare, using a photo that has been rotated, cropped, or had metadata changed.

Deep fakes: altered audio, video, and images

This is the area that arguably worries family lawyers the most.

A convincing deepfake may:

  • Make it appear a parent shouted, issued threats, or acted abusively
  • Place someone in a location they never visited
  • Fabricate a recording of a phone call
  • Alter a video to change tone, words, or physical behaviour

While deepfakes were once the domain of specialist developers, consumer-level tools now enable realistic audio cloning and face-swapping. In a high-conflict separation, this can be weaponised.

How digital evidence might be used in a family law case

Digital material can touch almost every aspect of family proceedings. When it is genuine and captured legally, it can help the court understand context and patterns of behaviour. When it is faked, it can distort the entire trajectory of a case.

Messaging apps often serve as the paper trail of a relationship. In cases where one partner claims they were subjected to coercive control, threatening messages or audio recordings may be used to support the allegation. If fabricated, such material unjustly undermines the other party and may lead to unfair protective measures such as non-molestation orders or restrictions around child contact.

A manipulated message might make it appear a parent refuses to communicate, forgets contact times, behaves irresponsibly, or places the child at risk. This can be strategically deployed to influence CAFCASS safeguarding assessments or to portray one parent as unreliable.

In respect of financial disputes, digital evidence may be used to show:

  • Hidden income
  • Agreements between spouses
  • Spending habits
  • Ownership of assets

A forged email claiming to confirm someone’s financial promises, or a manipulated bank screenshot, can be used to pressure the other party into settlement.

Family cases often hinge on whether the court believes someone, so a fabricated message making it appear a spouse admitted to lying, cheating, or manipulating accounts can cause lasting damage to credibility, particularly where the judge has limited time to interpret complex digital trails.

Implications for someone found to be faking evidence

The courts treat dishonesty extremely seriously. Faking evidence is not simply frowned upon; it can fundamentally shape the outcome of a case.

A court may make a formal finding that a party deliberately fabricated or manipulated evidence. This can destroy their credibility in all future proceedings, including those relating to children. If a judge believes someone has faked evidence once, the court may determine they have misled them in other areas too.

Although costs are unusual in family proceedings, dishonest behaviour such as falsifying evidence is one of the clearest paths to a costs order.

In terms of criminal consequences, depending on the severity, faking evidence could amount to:

  • Fraud
  • Perverting the course of justice
  • Harassment
  • Breach of the Computer Misuse Act

While criminal charges remain rare, the courts have the power to refer matters to the police where the conduct is sufficiently serious.

How the court verifies digital evidence when it is disputed

Family courts now expect digital evidence to be treated with caution, and the following options may be taken to determine the voracity of the material.

  • Forensic analysis: In higher-value or serious cases, a court may order a forensic IT specialist to examine devices, metadata, and file histories. They can determine:
    • When a file was created
    • Whether metadata has been edited
    • Whether a screenshot matches the original app structure
    • If a recording contains digital artefacts suggesting manipulation
  • Cross-checking against platform data: The courts can order disclosure directly from providers such as, WhatsApp, Facebook or Email platforms. While content is often end-to-end encrypted, some platforms retain timestamp logs, IP addresses, or account-related data that helps confirm authenticity.
  • Device inspection: Sometimes a simple look at the original device is enough. Courts increasingly expect parties to provide the actual device (under controlled conditions) rather than a curated selection of screenshots.
  • Consistency analysis: Judges frequently rely on narrative consistency. For example, if the tone, punctuation, and timing of messages don’t align with months of prior communication patterns, that inconsistency may raise doubts.

What happens if both sides produce conflicting digital evidence that cannot be verified?

As digital material is shared, this situation is becoming more common in court proceedings. Here, the court then has to examine:

  • The surrounding context
  • The behaviour patterns of each party
  • The overall credibility of each witness
  • Independent evidence, such as GP records, school reports, police logs, or CAFCASS observations

If neither digital trail can be proven authentic, the court may disregard both and rely exclusively on non-digital evidence. The judge’s central duty, to decide what is in the child’s best interests, means they will not allow ambiguous, unverifiable material to dictate the outcome. Often the court reminds parties that family litigation is not an exercise in digital forensics but in assessing welfare, safety, and practical reality.