The recent High Court decision in Re P ([2025] EWFC (Fam) 2961) (source: G v K – ) is a striking illustration of how modern technology (particularly AI tools such as ChatGPT) can complicate issues of privacy, confidentiality, and evidence in family proceedings.
While the Court was not asked to determine definitive findings on alleged hacking or relationship misconduct, the judgment highlights how digital intrusions can inflame conflict, contribute to safeguarding concerns, and influence litigation dynamics.
Below, we explore key privacy-related themes arising from the judgment, with reference to the passages you highlighted.
Accessing a Partner’s Digital Accounts: Consent or ‘Hacking’?
At paragraph 75, the Court considered how the father gained access to the mother’s ChatGPT account. The judge noted that this kind of access was “new to me”, likening it to someone viewing another person’s internet search history. Through this access, the father saw ChatGPT conversations in which the mother appeared to ask about separation and referred to an “affair partner”.
Critically, the judge observed:
- It was unclear whether the father had consensual access or whether he ‘hacked’ the account.
- The Court was not in a position to decide whether an affair occurred.
- What was clear is that the discovery “upset the father greatly”, which contributed to escalating conflict.
The mother alleged that, following this intrusion, the father became verbally abusive, calling her a “slut” and other offensive names. The father, for his part, stated that from this moment on, the parties no longer had a joint plan for their child’s care.
Why This Matters in Family Law
Accessing a partner’s private digital accounts can:
- Constitute unlawful interception or misuse of personal data;
- Create new allegations within proceedings (e.g., coercive control, intimidation, harassment);
- Affect the Court’s assessment of parental behaviour, domestic abuse, and the welfare of the child.
Even where parties once shared passwords, using old access to monitor communication can still be viewed as a privacy breach, especially post-separation.
Using Private Digital Communications as Evidence
At paragraph 85, the judgment describes a further escalation. The father continued to access the mother’s ChatGPT account and discovered queries about what evidence is required to report domestic abuse to UK police.
This is important for two reasons:
- It shows ongoing digital monitoring of the mother by the father.
- The content itself is open to interpretation, which the judge later emphasises at paragraph 139.
Shortly afterwards, a serious incident occurred involving an argument, a fall (whether accidental or staged), police involvement, and the mother’s arrest after the father played an audio recording to officers.
The Privacy Dimension
The fact that the father obtained information about the mother’s research into legal remedies raises significant questions:
- Was this a legitimate use of information?
- Was the mother attempting to understand how to report genuine abuse?
- Was the father interpreting her searches as fabricating allegations?
The judge concludes at paragraph 139 that the ChatGPT search logs are “open to interpretation”. This is a cautionary reminder that digital evidence is not always self-explanatory, and motives cannot be assumed.
Technology, Power Imbalance & Domestic Abuse
Digital monitoring can be a red flag for coercive or controlling behaviour, particularly if:
- One partner accesses accounts without consent,
- Communication is recorded covertly,
- Private research into safety or legal advice is intercepted.
In Re P, the Court did not determine definitively whether the father’s access was consensual. However, the effect—heightened conflict, emotional distress, and increased allegations—was undeniable.
In family law, the manner in which information is obtained can be as significant as the information itself. Intrusive behaviour may shape findings about:
- the safety of continuing contact,
- the dynamics of the relationship,
- the credibility and reliability of each party’s evidence,
- whether there has been emotional or psychological abuse.
The Risks of AI Platforms as “Search Engines” for Legal Advice
An interesting feature of the case is the judge’s description of ChatGPT as akin to “internet search history”. Many people now use AI privately to:
- Ask for separation guidance,
- Explore domestic abuse reporting procedures,
- Seek emotional support.
This judgment underscores that:
- AI conversations are not confidential if someone else accesses your device or account.
- Private queries may later surface as evidence in family proceedings.
- Parties should be cautious and assume that anything stored digitally may be discoverable.
For lawyers advising clients, it is now increasingly important to discuss digital safety: account access, changing passwords, and securing cloud histories.
Practical Guidance: Protecting Privacy in Family Disputes
Based on themes arising from Re P, clients should be advised to:
- Review digital security immediately on separation
Change passwords, enable two-factor authentication, and log out of shared devices.
- Be mindful of what is stored on cloud-based tools
ChatGPT, Google, and other apps may automatically save query histories.
- Seek legal advice before recording conversations
Recordings may be admissible—but the way they are obtained can raise concerns. In Short: document – don’t escalate.
- Avoid accessing a partner’s accounts without clear, current consent
Doing so could constitute:
- A criminal offence (Computer Misuse Act),
- Misuse of private information,
- Behaviour relevant to domestic abuse allegations.
Understand that context matters
As the judge emphasised, digital records are open to multiple interpretations and rarely provide a full picture.
Conclusion and Guidance
Re P (EWFC 2025/2961) is one of the first reported cases to involve AI platform access as part of a family dispute, marking a new frontier in privacy within family law. The judgment reinforces a timeless principle: respect for personal privacy is central to healthy co-parenting and safe separation.
Paradigm’s Senior Partner Frank Arndt says: “ In an era where our digital footprints can easily be accessed, misunderstood, or weaponised, both clients and practitioners must be alert to the legal and emotional consequences of privacy breaches.”
Further Reading
From Courtroom to Code – the AI Revolution Transforming Divorce Law : A look at how artificial intelligence is reshaping evidence, decision-making, and the future of family law.
Are You Ready for the World’s First AI Divorce Consultant? : How AI tools can support clearer, faster decision-making during separation — and where their limits lie.
FDR Confidentiality in Focus: Lessons from Recent Family Law Cases: Why confidentiality remains a cornerstone of dispute resolution, and what recent judgments mean for families.
Dispute Resolution methods in Divorce: A clear guide to resolving disputes without court, reducing conflict, cost and delay.
We Are Here Throughout Christmas & New Year
If you need help finalising arrangements, reviewing an order, or responding to a last-minute issue, Paradigm Family Law LLP remains open throughout the festive period.
Whether you need urgent advice or simply some clarity about your options, our specialist team is here to support you.
📧 info@paradigmfamilylaw.co.uk
📞 01904 217225 or mobile: 07592 504136