You open a packet of court papers for your custody case and see screenshots of texts you barely recognize, highlighted and labeled as “proof” that you are volatile, dishonest, or dangerous. The messages look familiar but not quite right, and key parts of the conversations seem to be missing. Yet those images sit there in black and white, staring back at you as if they are the unquestionable truth.
For many parents and spouses in New Hampshire family court, that moment becomes the turning point in a case. Judges often rely heavily on texts, emails, social media messages, and screenshots to decide who is credible, who is safe around children, and who should move out of the home. When those digital exhibits are incomplete, misleading, or manipulated, they can quietly distort what the court believes really happened.
At Brennan Lenehan Iacopino & Hickey, we have spent decades representing New Hampshire families as digital communication moved from the background of relationships to the center of custody and divorce disputes. We have seen how quickly a few screenshots can overshadow years of parenting, especially when no one asks the right questions about how that evidence was created and handled. In this article, we walk through how digital evidence actually works, where the system often fails, and what you can do to protect yourself.
Why Digital Evidence Has So Much Power In Family Court
In a family courtroom, judges are asked to make deeply personal decisions with limited time and limited visibility into the day-to-day life of a family. They cannot sit in your living room or ride along during exchanges. Instead, they lean on the pieces of evidence that seem to offer a direct window into private behavior. Texts and emails, which appear to show your own words in real time, often feel like the closest thing to that window.
Digital messages also dominate because they are fast and easy to attach to motions and affidavits. In New Hampshire, temporary orders, emergency hearings, and protective orders are often decided on written filings and short hearings. A stack of screenshots attached to a motion can strongly influence a judge’s first impression before anyone testifies. That early impression can shape temporary parenting plans or restraining orders that remain in place for months.
Family courts also routinely operate under significant time pressure. Judges may have only minutes to review a file before taking the bench. When a party offers printed texts or emails as exhibits, the court may accept them informally as part of the record, without a detailed discussion of how those messages were collected, what might be missing, or whether anything was altered. Over the more than 40 years our firm has practiced in New Hampshire, we have watched this informal use of digital evidence grow, often without matching improvements in how that evidence is checked.
For you, this means that a handful of messages, pulled from years of conversations, can carry enormous weight. Understanding why those messages are so persuasive is the first step toward understanding why they must also be treated with more care than they often receive.
Worried that digital messages could be misinterpreted in your family case? Schedule a confidential consultation online or call (603) 734-5461 to speak with Brennan Lenehan Iacopino & Hickey.
How Screenshots & Printouts Fail As Reliable Digital Evidence
Most people experience digital evidence in the form of screenshots and printouts. Someone scrolls through a message thread, selects a few screens that seem helpful to their story, takes pictures, and then prints or attaches them to a court filing. At first glance, this looks like a straightforward way to show what was said. In reality, it strips away many of the safeguards that make digital records useful.
The first problem is completeness. A screenshot captures only what fits on the screen at that moment. It does not show the full thread, timestamps outside the visible area, or messages that were present earlier and have since been deleted. It is easy to omit the part where the other party apologized, admitted their own behavior, or sent several aggressive messages in a row that prompted a heated response. A few carefully chosen images can make it look like you exploded out of nowhere.
Printouts introduce more gaps. When texts or emails are printed, the court loses access to underlying details such as full email headers, phone numbers behind contact names, and precise time and date information that may not appear on every page. A printed thread labeled “From Sam” tells the judge nothing about whether “Sam” is actually associated with a specific phone number or email address. Anyone can rename a contact to “Sam” and send themselves messages to stage a conversation that never happened.
Forwarded messages and copied-and-pasted content create additional risk. A person can forward an email to themselves, edit the subject line or body in the new message, then present that new email as if it were the original. They can copy text into a notes app, change wording, and screenshot it. Once that image is on paper, the differences between genuine and fabricated content can be extremely hard to see with the naked eye.
Because we routinely review digital exhibits in New Hampshire family cases, we focus on how and where screenshots break the trail back to the source. When we ask to see the actual device or a full export from the messaging platform, we often find missing context or inconsistencies that never appear in the printed packet. Those gaps are precisely what you need the court to see.
Chain Of Custody & Metadata: The Missing Safeguards
In criminal cases or complex civil litigation, digital evidence usually passes through a documented path known as a chain of custody. Each step where the data changed hands is logged, along with how it was collected and stored. That record helps show that what appears in court is the same data that existed on the original device or server. In family court, however, this level of documentation is far less common.
A proper chain of custody for a text thread might start with a full export from the messaging app or a download of phone records from the carrier, done in a way that preserves all messages and associated data. The export would be saved in a secure format, then passed to counsel, then to the court, with records of who accessed it and when. At each step, the goal is to limit opportunities for someone to add, remove, or change messages without leaving a trace.
Metadata is the other missing safeguard. Metadata is simply data about data. For texts and emails, it can include the date and time a message was sent, the sender and recipient addresses or numbers, information about the device, and sometimes location data. For files, metadata can show when a document was created, modified, or copied. When you see only a screenshot or printout, most of this information is not visible.
Consider a dispute over whether a threatening text was sent before or after a particular incident. A screenshot might show only the day and time for part of the thread, or not at all, depending on the phone’s display settings. A full export with metadata can show exact timestamps down to the minute, which can support or contradict someone’s story. If a screenshot shows a message “sent” from your number at a time when phone records or device logs show your phone powered off, that inconsistency can become vital.
In our experience, New Hampshire family courts rarely see a full chain of custody records or complete metadata in routine cases. Parties usually bring whatever they printed at home or pulled together with little guidance. That does not mean you cannot ask for better documentation. It means that someone who understands these gaps has to decide when it is worth pushing for original data, carrier records, or at least more complete exports, so the judge is not left with only the most fragile version of the truth.
Common Ways Digital Evidence Gets Twisted In Family Cases
People going through divorce or custody disputes rarely think of themselves as tampering with evidence. Many would be shocked to hear that what they are doing could mislead the court. Yet we see the same patterns again and again in how digital messages are presented, and those patterns can quietly distort what a judge believes.
Some of the most common manipulation and distortion methods include:
- Selective deletion. One party clears their own hostile or provocative messages from the thread, then screenshots only the other person’s emotional responses. The judge sees anger, not the baiting that produced it.
- Edited or staged screenshots. With simple editing tools, someone can crop out lines, blur parts they dislike, or combine portions of threads to create the appearance of a single conversation that never actually occurred that way.
- Spoofed or misleading contacts. Changing a contact name to “Mom,” “Therapist,” or a romantic partner’s name can turn an ordinary exchange with a different person into alleged proof of misconduct or infidelity.
- Shared devices and accounts. In many families, tablets, social media accounts, or email logins are shared or were once shared. A message sent from an account may not have been written by the person now being blamed.
- Context stripping. Even without technical alteration, parties often present single messages or short segments without the surrounding conversation that shows apologies, corrections, or the other side’s choices.
These techniques are not always deliberate attempts to fool the court. Sometimes, a person simply prints what supports their side and never stops to consider how incomplete that picture is. Yet the effect on your case can be the same. A parent who appears to be constantly raging in text may, in full context, be responding to months of taunting or threats.
Practical signs that something is off include gaps in dates or times, screenshots where the interface changes style midway, threads that begin or end abruptly with no greeting or conclusion, and messages attributed to you that do not match your usual wording or timing. When we work with a client in these situations, our selective caseload allows us to dig into entire message histories instead of just glancing at what is in the other side’s binder. That level of review is often the only way to see patterns that contradict the story being told through a few carefully chosen images.
Who Gets Blamed When Digital Evidence Misleads The Court
When a judge appears to accept a misleading screenshot, it is natural to feel that the court is against you. Blame often lands on the judge, the other parent, or “the system” in general. The reality is more complicated. Many of the problems start long before the hearing, in how evidence is gathered and challenged, or not challenged, along the way.
The party offering digital evidence bears the first responsibility. They choose what to present, how to present it, and whether to disclose complete threads or only their preferred pages. Opposing counsel has an opportunity to question authenticity and completeness, but only if they recognize the problem early and have enough information to work with. The judge sits at the end of that pipeline, often seeing only what fits into a short hearing and a physical or electronic case file.
Time pressure plays a large role. In New Hampshire family courts, temporary hearings and status conferences often move quickly. Judges are expected to make fast decisions about parenting time, support, and safety while many other cases wait in the hallway. That pace makes it tempting to accept texts and emails at face value, especially when neither side raises an objection or offers a better-documented alternative.
Technical understanding varies. Some judges and attorneys are very comfortable with digital evidence, ask detailed questions about where messages came from, and want to see complete records. Others rely more on the parties’ assurances, in part because family law has traditionally been more informal than criminal or commercial litigation. Over decades in Manchester and other New Hampshire courts, we have seen both approaches. Recognizing which environment you are in can help shape whether it makes sense to press harder on authenticity or focus on context and credibility.
We find that the most effective way to address misused digital evidence is to shift the conversation from blame to structure. If the court never sees that a screenshot is incomplete or inconsistent with other records, it cannot correct its own impression. Our role is to identify those weaknesses early, bring them to the court’s attention clearly and respectfully, and offer more reliable alternatives where possible.
Steps You Can Take To Protect Yourself From Faulty Digital Evidence
You cannot control what the other side chooses to show the court, but you can take concrete steps to protect yourself and strengthen your position. Good habits around digital communications make it easier for your lawyer to counter misleading exhibits and present a fuller picture of your life to the judge.
First, focus on preservation. Avoid wiping, resetting, or trading in phones, tablets, or computers that contain relevant messages, even if you are frustrated with the constant reminders of past conflicts. Back up entire conversations where important issues are discussed, such as parenting time, threats, or agreements, rather than only a few messages. Many platforms allow you to export full chat histories to a file that can be stored safely and reviewed later.
Second, document context whenever serious incidents occur. If a particular exchange becomes heated or includes threats, make a note of the date, time, and what was happening in person around those messages. Keep related emails, voicemails, and photos together so that later you can reconstruct what led up to a key text. This kind of organized documentation allows your attorney to build a timeline that shows the court the bigger pattern instead of just snapshots.
Third, involve your attorney early when digital evidence is at issue. Share the entire thread or account access where appropriate, not only the pages you think matter. If you suspect that the other party has altered or selectively edited messages, bring that concern forward as soon as possible. Your lawyer can then evaluate whether to seek original device access, provider records, or formal discovery to clarify what really exists.
At Brennan Lenehan Iacopino & Hickey, our approach is relational and thorough. We take time to understand how you communicate with the other party, what devices and accounts you use, and where the important conversations actually took place. That deeper understanding turns your preservation efforts into a strategic foundation rather than a pile of disconnected screenshots that are easy for the other side to twist.
How A Focused Legal Review Of Digital Evidence Can Change Your Case
Digital evidence issues are not solved by one magic objection or a single dramatic moment. What often changes a case is a focused, systematic review of the messages that truly matter, paired with a strategy for how to present and challenge them in court. This is where a lawyer who takes the time to dig into your communications can make a real, practical difference.
A structured review starts with the big picture. Instead of zeroing in only on the worst messages, we look for patterns over time. Do the messages show consistent efforts to co-parent, follow court orders, and de-escalate conflict, even if there are moments where emotions run high? Are there long stretches where the other party ignores or undermines agreements? Drawing out these patterns helps the judge see more than isolated angry words.
Next comes the comparison between what you have preserved and what the other side has offered. Do their screenshots omit portions of threads that appear in your exports? Are there differences in timestamps, layout, or wording that suggest editing or selective deletion? Even when a full forensic analysis is not realistic, pointing out these inconsistencies can reduce the weight the judge gives to questionable exhibits.
Finally, we plan how to explain these issues clearly in hearings or negotiations. Judges are not looking for technical lectures. They need straightforward, concrete explanations such as, “This is only part of the conversation, Your Honor. Here is the complete thread showing both sides, with dates and times.” Our years of courtroom practice in New Hampshire, both in trials and in alternative dispute resolution settings, help us decide which disputes over digital evidence are worth pressing and which are better addressed through context and narrative.
Because we maintain a selective caseload and invest long hours in each client’s matter, we can build coherent stories from complex digital records rather than reacting at the last minute to whatever shows up in the other side’s filings. That focused review can be the difference between a judge seeing you as a one-dimensional screenshot and seeing you as a whole parent or spouse with a documented history.
Talk With A New Hampshire Attorney About Digital Evidence In Your Family Case
Unchecked digital evidence can quietly steer a family court case in the wrong direction. Texts, emails, and screenshots feel authoritative, yet without proper context and verification, they can misrepresent years of parenting and relationship history. When you understand how easily messages can be twisted and how rarely courts see a full chain of custody and metadata in routine family matters, it becomes clear that you need a plan for how your communications will be preserved, reviewed, and presented.
If you are facing a divorce, custody dispute, or protective order in New Hampshire and digital messages are part of the case, you do not have to navigate these issues alone. At Brennan Lenehan Iacopino & Hickey, we draw on decades of family law practice in Manchester and across the state to examine digital evidence carefully and integrate it into a broader strategy tailored to your situation.
Schedule a confidential consultation online or call Brennan Lenehan Iacopino & Hickey today at (603) 734-5461 to speak with an experienced New Hampshire family law attorney.