A mother is ordered to stop publishing photos of her teenage daughter on social networks

The particularity of the case is that the action It was started by the teenager herselfidentified in the file as “DR, JE”, who acted in her own right with the sponsorship of lawyers Adriana Valdearenas and Andrés Da Rold. The proposal was processed as a self-satisfying measure, that is, an urgent process that seeks an immediate solution.

According to the file “DR, JE c/ S., A. Fernanda Lorena p/ Self-Satisfactory Measures”, the young woman reported the repeated exposure of her image on social networks and messaging services by her mother. In his presentation, he maintained that this practice, known as “sharenting”, affected her right to privacy, integrity and decorum, and linked her to situations of school bullying.

In her resolution, the judge recalled that self-satisfactory measures are processes that “require prompt resolution” and that they do not allow delays when fundamental rights are at stake. He also stressed that the right to one’s own image is a very personal right and that, in this context, It does not require further testing for protection.

The court granted the request on a “precautionary, urgent and immediate” basis and ordered the mother to refrain from publishing or disseminating images, photographs, videos, audios or graphic representations of adolescents in social networks and digital services. In addition, he ordered the immediate elimination of content in which his face appears.

The ruling puts at the center an increasingly widespread discussion: to what extent adults can expose the lives of children and adolescents on social networks. The practice of sharenting, which combines the English words share and parenting, refers precisely to the systematic publication of content about children from their parents.

From a legal point of view, very personal rights such as privacy, identity and self-image are at stake. In the Mendoza case, the judge stressed that the measure does not constitute an illegitimate restriction on freedom of expression, but rather a reasonable and proportional protection against rights of higher hierarchy in that context.

The Civil and Commercial Code recognizes the right to the image and requires consent for its dissemination. In the case of minors, the principle of the best interests of the child and the recognition of their progressive autonomy govern, which implies that, as they grow, they can make decisions on aspects that directly affect them.

On a psychological level, different specialists warn that constant exposure can generate discomfort, embarrassment or loss of control over one’s digital identity (which, in some countries, the discussion is already crossed by prohibition). The footprint left by Internet publications can remain for years and escape the control of whoever was exposed.

In the file, the teenager linked the publications to situations of teasing and harassment in the school environment. That specific impact was one of the elements that reinforced the urgency of the judicial measure.

Beyond the family conflict, the case reopens the debate about security in digital environments where not only addiction to networks is a problem. Social networks facilitate the rapid viralization of content, something that the judge highlighted when analyzing the “danger in delay” and the need for an immediate response.

Publishing images of minors can entail additional risks: from the possibility of third parties downloading and reusing photos without authorization to exposure to grooming or grooming situations. inappropriate contact by adults.

There are also risks linked to data overexposure. Photographs showing school uniforms, usual locations or routines can facilitate identification and tracking by strangers.

Added to this is that, once an image circulates on the internet, its complete elimination is difficult or impossible. Even if deleted from an original account, it may have been replicated or archived in other digital spaces.

The Mendoza ruling also introduces a relevant precedent: the direct action of a teenager in defense of her image and privacy. In a context in which digital life begins at increasingly younger ages, the case marks a limit on who decides and How far does the right to expose the lives of children on networks go?