Parents' Tracking Devices: A Judgement

This Judgement covers a discrete factual issue of tracking devices discovered during a set of care proceedings.  Re BM (Children: Tracking Devices) | [2025] EWFC 290 (B)

The 4 children involved in this case were all under school age.  They were in foster care.  3 Tracking devices were found by the foster carer, in toys and a bag given to the children by the parents during contact.  The tracking devices were carefully stitched into the items.  

The mother also had 3 older children who had previously been removed and either adopted or placed with family members. Flight risk was one of the issues of concern in these earlier proceedings.  

The local authority was very concerned about the purpose of the planting of the tracking devices in this current matter.  The parents had a history of going ‘off grid’ and becoming uncontactable, as well as other concerns of child neglect.  Abduction was the cited fear.  

The parents initially denied all knowledge of the tracking devices, going so far as to allege the Local authority had planted them to discredit them.  The mother then later admitted in a statement that she had planted them without the father’s knowledge.  She suggested the reason for this was her concern about bruises seen on the children.  

Court permission was granted to instruct an expert to examine the phones of the parents. However, this proved impossible as the father said he had sold his phone, and the mother had factory reset hers and sold to a Cash Converters shop.

In evidence the parents gave inconsistent accounts, including the mother being unable to demonstrate the technical knowledge regarding linking the trackers to the phone.  Their evidence was rejected by the judge entirely.  

Established legal principles were applied to this modern issue.  The judgement set out the law related to fact finding hearings, and the relevant authorities on the standard of proof and the evidential weight that is to be placed on lies in evidence.

The Judge found that that both parents were complicit in an attempt to remove the children from foster care, posing a risk of significant harm to the children.  The Judge set out the risks to the children had they been abducted by their parents and taken ‘off-grid’.  This was quite unfortunate as prior to this incident the parents had fairly positive parenting assessments and there had been the possibility of reunification within the extended family.

The parents’ decision to covertly track their children, and then set about deceiving the court, seriously damaged their case, and the court would need to observe the parents demonstrating they could address the damage caused, focus upon their children and show that they can meet their needs.

This is a clear indication that tracking devices and covert recording are viewed as harmful and something the court will deal with as a serious issue.  

If you have a family law case you need assistance with, please contact Mavis on 020 8885 7986 to arrange for an appointment with a solicitor in the family team.

Patricia Beckett