. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reading your spouse’s emails during a divorce

Divorce is difficult for everyone who goes through it. Things are especially difficult if you suspect your spouse is having an affair. It’s incredibly tempting to peek into your spouse’s emails or Facebook account in an effort to learn the truth or gather evidence, but be careful! Checking email or Facebook without permission can land you in trouble with the judge in your divorce and law enforcement.

Infidelity destroys marriages. Once trust is lost, it is almost impossible to get it back. Only honesty, hard work on both sides, and a significant amount of counseling can help couples save their marriages. But what if she suspects her spouse is cheating on him, but he or she isn’t coming clean?

An alarming number of affairs start online. Facebook has become a hotbed of infidelity as old flames or out-of-town friends are able to reconnect. Add to that feelings of disconnection or disinterest in the marriage and cheating becomes a real possibility. Email allows long-distance communication that has the appearance of privacy. This allows people to explore relationships and taboos that they would not normally follow.

If you feel like your spouse may be cheating on you, the evidence is probably on your computer. The temptation to take a look is almost overwhelming. And the evidence that comes from inspecting email is often incredibly powerful in the courtroom. The problem is that getting access to your spouse’s email or Facebook account could be a serious crime!

Current laws prohibit unauthorized access to another person’s computer. These laws were intended to prevent hackers and others from accessing private information for criminal purposes, such as identity theft. Recently, some prosecutors have tried to expand them to include husbands who read their wives’ emails. Prosecutors are treating this as the same type of invasion of privacy, regardless of whether or not the parties are married.

The law is not completely resolved on this matter. The statutes, as written, have gaps or gray areas for husband/wife situations. Some prosecutors refuse to accept these types of cases. Some divorce judges don’t flinch when presented with evidence obtained in this way. On the other hand, some prosecutors have nothing better to do than pursue these kinds of cases, and some judges are furious when they discover that one party has invaded the other’s privacy in this way.

The question to ask yourself is “is it worth the risk?” The answer is generally no. There are other ways to achieve your goals. The easiest thing is to take the computer in question to a computer expert and have them make a copy of the hard drive where the suspicious emails are stored. This allows you to have a copy and avoids the destruction of possible evidence. Then you can address the privacy issue with the help of an attorney and avoid accusations of invasion of privacy.

Leave A Comment