Hidden Recordings in Family Disputes: New Court Rules Target Growing Smartphone Evidence Trend

16 Jul 2025

Family lawyers report regular submissions of covert recordings which has led the courts to introduce stricter guidance on secretly filmed evidence in children matters.

Family solicitors across England and Wales are reporting an unprecedented surge in covert recordings being submitted as evidence in family proceedings. With smartphone technology making it easier than ever to secretly record conversations or film interactions, lawyers now receive such recordings almost weekly from clients convinced they demonstrate crucial evidence about their ex-partner’s behaviour or parenting capabilities.

This proliferation of covert evidence has prompted the courts to take decisive action. New guidance published by the Family Justice Council specifically warns against secretly recording ex-partners or children as part of contact disputes, highlighting serious concerns about privacy violations and the potential for such recordings to mislead or cause emotional harm.

The timing of this guidance is particularly significant as family pressures traditionally peak during school holidays, when disrupted routines and increased childcare demands can push already strained relationships to breaking point. Many couples find themselves documenting incidents during these high-stress periods, believing recordings will strengthen their case in future proceedings.

“The ease of recording on smartphones has fundamentally changed how people approach family disputes,” explained Simon Walker, a family law expert in Bath. “Clients regularly arrive with hours of secretly recorded material, convinced it will be the smoking gun in their case. However, the courts are increasingly sceptical about such evidence.”

The Family Justice Council’s guidance emphasises that covert recordings often backfire spectacularly in family proceedings. Rather than strengthening a case, they can undermine trust, damage credibility, and potentially amount to harassment. More critically, when children are involved, such recordings can cause significant emotional harm and may actually work against the recorder’s interests in custody arrangements.

Since the introduction of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, the family courts have moved towards a more constructive approach. The no-fault divorce system, which allows couples to end their marriage without assigning blame, has created a framework that encourages cooperation rather than conflict. This shift makes the adversarial nature of covert recordings even more problematic.

“The no-fault divorce system was designed to reduce conflict and help families move forward constructively,” added Simon. “Secret recordings are completely at odds with this philosophy. They create an atmosphere of mistrust and surveillance that’s particularly damaging when children are caught in the middle.”

The guidance is clear: concerns about an ex-partner’s behaviour or parenting should be raised through proper legal channels – mediators, solicitors, or court proceedings – rather than through covert surveillance. Professional intervention can address issues effectively while protecting all parties, especially children, from the psychological impact of being unknowingly recorded.

For parents navigating separation or divorce, particularly during the challenging summer period when family tensions often escalate, the message from the courts is unambiguous: focus on child-centred solutions through open, transparent processes rather than attempting to gather secret evidence.

“Whether relationship breakdown occurs during a difficult summer or has been building over time, early professional advice makes all the difference,” concluded Simon. “With proper support, families can move forward in a way that minimises conflict and protects everyone involved, especially children – and that’s impossible to achieve when family members are secretly recording each other.”

The courts’ new stance reflects a broader recognition that while technology has made covert recording simple, the family justice system must prioritise children’s wellbeing and family rehabilitation over adversarial evidence gathering.

Website content note: This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.