One party, and you can be it
DC needs the consent of one person in the conversation. If you are on the call, you have given it.
So recording your own call with the other parent is generally lawful in DC. The exemption in D.C. Code 23-542 ends if the purpose is criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious. A tortious act is a civil wrong, such as invasion of privacy.
Mobile calls are covered
In Thomas v. United States (2017), the DC Court of Appeals applied the statute to mobile phone calls.
So the same rules apply whether you are on a landline or a mobile. A call you are on is covered by the party exemption. A call between the other parent and someone else is not.
The other parent is often across the line
Many DC co-parents live on different sides of a state line. One parent may be in DC while the other is in Maryland or Virginia.
When a call crosses a state line, more than one state's law may be relevant. Which one a court applies depends on the facts. Assume the stricter rule may matter until a lawyer says otherwise.
Why Maryland changes the picture
Maryland needs the consent of every party to a private conversation. Its courts have held there is no exception for spouses.
Maryland also generally bars unlawfully recorded contents from evidence. A call recorded in DC with a parent in Maryland raises questions a DC-only rule does not answer.
Virginia has its own rules
Virginia is one-party for making a recording. It has separate rules on using recorded phone calls in civil cases, including family cases.
If the other parent lives in Virginia, ask a lawyer whether a recording will be usable, not only whether it was lawful to make.
The cost of crossing the line
Recording a conversation you are not part of, with no party's consent, can bring up to five years in prison. A fine can be added.
The person recorded can also sue under DC law. Spyware on the other parent's phone, or a device in their home, is where both risks meet.
Your child's calls
A call between your child and the other parent is one you are not part of. The party exemption does not cover you.
Some courts let a parent consent for a young child under Pollock v. Pollock. DC has not clearly settled this. Across state lines it is even less certain, so take advice first.
What to keep instead
Write events down the same day, with the clock time, the words in quotation marks and who was present. Written notes raise no state-line question.
A call log for custody records keeps calls in order. A factual incident report covers single events. Take both to a DC family lawyer.
A DC custody note that notes where everyone was
In DC, the other parent's location can change the rule. A written note works anywhere. Write it the same day.
Keep the DC record that works across state lines
Casewell keeps your dated entries, the words you heard and the files behind them in one private place. A note written on the day is stronger than a memory rebuilt later. Export a focused PDF for a DC lawyer.
Is DC a one-party consent jurisdiction?
Yes. D.C. Code 23-542 lets a party to a conversation record it, unless the purpose is criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious.
Can I record a call with my ex who lives in Maryland?
DC is one-party, but Maryland needs everyone's consent to a private conversation. When a call crosses the line, take advice before recording.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in DC?
Unlawful interception under D.C. Code 23-542 can bring up to five years in prison and a fine.
Does DC's recording law cover mobile phones?
Yes. The DC Court of Appeals applied the statute to mobile phone calls in Thomas v. United States (2017).
Can I record my child's calls with their other parent in DC?
That is a conversation you are not part of. Vicarious consent is not clearly settled in DC, so speak to a lawyer first.
Sources
This page describes D.C. Code 23-542 and the DC Court of Appeals decision in Thomas v. United States, with notes on neighbouring Maryland and Virginia. It explains the law and is not legal advice.
- D.C. Code 23-542 โ interception prohibited, and the party exemption checked
- Thomas v. United States, 171 A.3d 151 (D.C. 2017) โ the statute applies to mobile phone calls checked
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press โ District of Columbia recording guide and penalties checked
- Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998) โ the vicarious consent doctrine checked
- 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) โ the federal one-party consent floor and its criminal-or-tortious-purpose proviso checked