Devin Haney Scores Court Win as Judge Blocks Ex’s Request to Post Their Child on Social Media
Boxing world champion Devin Haney not only dominates inside the ring — he’s also come out on top in a heated custody-related court battle that has drawn plenty of public attention. This week, a Los Angeles judge refused to let Haney’s ex-fiancée post photos of their young child on social media without Haney’s consent, marking a significant legal win for the undisputed lightweight powerhouse.
The ruling stems from a motion filed by Haney’s former partner, Leena Sayed, who sought to modify their parenting agreement so she could freely share images of their one-year-old daughter, Khrome, on social platforms without requiring Haney’s approval. A judge ruled that the request was not in the best interest of the child, keeping the existing agreement in place.
What the Judge Decided
In his written decision, Judge Hank Goldberg sided with Haney’s position that exposing a young child to the public internet should only be done with caution — especially given the high-profile status of both parents. The judge emphasized that there is “no argument” a one-year-old benefits from being a subject of social media attention.
The judge noted that while many celebrity parents enjoy sharing family moments online, such exposure can also invite unwanted scrutiny or risks that may outweigh any perceived benefits. Importantly, the ruling didn’t ban all photos of Khrome; rather, it upheld the part of the agreement requiring mutual consent before anything is posted online. Photos that don’t include the child’s likeness — such as event snapshots where Khrome isn’t visible — remain permissible.
The Background of the Dispute
This legal matter didn’t materialize overnight. Earlier filings revealed Haney pushed back against what he described as broad and unilateral social-media requests from his ex-fiancée, arguing that the current custody order requires both parents’ written consent before posting child photos online. That original stipulation was agreed upon when they were together and was intended to protect the child’s privacy.
In his legal filings, Haney’s attorneys also raised concerns aligned with his desire for privacy, pointing to Sayed’s presence on both Instagram and OnlyFans and arguing that unrestricted posting of their daughter’s image could lead to unwanted public exposure. However, the judge’s ruling focused primarily on the legal agreement’s existing language and the child’s welfare, rather than the specific content posted by either parent.
Public Engagement and Social Media Concerns
This case has tapped into broader public debates over social media and children’s consent. In an era where parents often share milestones online — from first steps to birthdays — courts are increasingly faced with balancing parental rights with considerations about a child’s long-term privacy and digital footprint. Some family courts have ruled in favor of restricting online sharing when it’s deemed to be excessive or when one parent raises valid concerns.
For Haney and Sayed, this issue also intersects with the realities of celebrity life, where sports figures and influencers alike are accustomed to sharing moments with millions of followers. By enforcing the requirement of mutual consent, the judge effectively reaffirmed the importance of cooperation when children are involved — especially where public figures are concerned.
What This Means Moving Forward
For now, the existing parenting agreement remains in place, and neither parent can post images of Khrome that clearly show her without the other’s consent. Both Haney and Sayed were represented by competent counsel, and the judge’s ruling confirmed that the original agreement was entered into voluntarily and without coercion.
This court victory provides Haney with legal clarity and reinforces a stance that many parents — especially public figures — are trying to navigate: how to celebrate moments of family life while also safeguarding a child’s privacy and future autonomy online.
As for Sayed, any future attempts to modify the custody agreement will likely face a high bar, given the court’s emphasis on prioritizing what it determined to be in the child’s best interests.
