Sessions 1 & 11: Social Media: Evidence, Deepfakes, and Authentication
Social media infiltrators have become masterful at phishing scams and “deepfakes,” leaving consumers often unaware and unable to discern what is real. In the context of family court, this basis for new forms of “evidence” regarding who said or did what to whom, or even alleged transactions that one party emphatically denies is constantly evolving. This workshop discusses strategies for evaluating the validity of proposed evidence and ways to identify fraud and “deepfakes.” An interdisciplinary panel will discuss the value of social media, emails, and other internet-based communications in family court cases, what to do after fraudulent “evidence” is introduced, and how to rehabilitate a case when it is included in initial or emergency hearings with simply no time for authentication.

Question Title

* 1. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the conference brochure

Question Title

* 2. Based on the content of this session, I am able to: (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree)

  1 2 3 4 5
1. Identify two ways AI can be used to generate misleading information.
2. Analyze how to ethically and appropriately review AI-generated output for inclusion in professional work.
3. Identify strategies to rebut and address the validity of electronic evidence.
4. Discuss strategies for evaluating the validity of proposed evidence in social media and ways to identify fraud and “deepfakes.”
5. Discuss how to rehabilitate a case when altered evidence is included in initial or emergency hearings with simply no time for authentication.

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Chris Mulchay, PhD, ABPP (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Sean B. Knuth, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 5. Please rate presenter: Rob McAngus, Esq. (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 6. Please rate presenter: Hon. Mark Juhas (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 7. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 8. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 9. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 10. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 11. Additional Comments

T