The practice of law is constantly evolving to keep up with changes in technology. The past decade has witnessed the onset of E-Filing, reliance upon e-mail and text messages as primary modes of communication, and the influential realm of social media. As family law practitioners, we must be cognizant of the benefits while exercising caution in navigating the limitations associated with these platforms.

Social media has become a useful tool in locating old friends and keeping in touch with family members residing around the world. It can also be helpful in finding an otherwise absent party in a matrimonial matter. While our Court Rules do not explicitly permit serving a complaint on an unavailable litigant via social media, our case law has allowed this method of substituted service.

In the published trial court decision of K.A. v. J.L., 450 N.J. Super. 247 (Ch. Div. 2017), an out-of-state defendant used social media to engage in inappropriate contact with New Jersey residents. As a preliminary matter, the court found New Jersey had personal jurisdiction over the defendant because he “knowingly reached out to various members of plaintiffs’ family, who are New Jersey residents.” As such, the defendant could have anticipated the harm would occur in New Jersey. This exercise of long arm jurisdiction can be extended to matrimonial matters. It is particularly relevant in domestic violence actions when the allegations arise via social media or other electronic communications.

K.A. also permitted service of the complaint via social media when neither personal service nor mail per Rule 4-4(b)(1) were viable options. In K.A., the alleged conduct only occurred via Facebook and Instagram. The defendant’s recent activity on Facebook verified the account was in use. Moreover, the receipt of the document in this context could be verified through a feature within the Facebook website. Thus, in a matter of first impression within the New Jersey courts, Judge Hansbury held that service of the complaint via Facebook satisfied due process and was permissible per Rule 4:4-4(b)(3).

CLICK HERE to read more.