Summary
In custody disputes, secretly using GPS tracking on a child or co-parent's vehicle can violate privacy laws and damage the tracker's credibility as a co-parent, unless done transparently with court approval for legitimate, well-documented safety concerns about the child. Parents should work through proper legal channels to address parenting time issues, as secret tracking often backfires and creates more problems than it solves.
Here is the article, formatted in HTML:GPS Tracking Disputes in Custody Conflicts: Legal Issues and Remedies
Background
In today's digital age, GPS tracking has become increasingly accessible and affordable. While this technology has many legitimate uses, it has also given rise to new concerns in sensitive situations like divorce and child custody battles. It is not uncommon for one parent to secretly place a GPS tracker on a child or vehicle to monitor the other parent's whereabouts and activities during their parenting time. This surreptitious tracking often sparks heated legal disputes.
GPS tracking in custody cases presents a complex web of competing interests and rights. On one hand, parents understandably want to ensure their children's safety and well-being when in the other parent's care. They may have genuine concerns about the other parent's lifestyle, new partner, driving habits, or adherence to the parenting schedule. GPS data could presumably provide verification and peace of mind.
However, the other parent has an equally valid expectation of privacy during their court-ordered parenting time. Secret GPS monitoring can feel invasive and controlling, undermining the trust and cooperation needed for effective co-parenting. It may also violate state privacy laws or constitute stalking. Children caught in the middle may feel uncomfortable knowing a parent is watching their every move.
When disputes over GPS tracking arise in custody litigation, courts must carefully balance the best interests of the child, parental rights, privacy concerns, and any history of domestic abuse or parental misconduct. The outcome depends heavily on the specific facts of the case and the jurisdiction's applicable laws.
Legal Issues
Most states have laws against placing a GPS device on someone's vehicle or property without their consent. Even if the parents jointly own the vehicle, attaching a secret tracking device could still be illegal. In some states it may constitute stalking or harassment. However, the analysis becomes more complicated when the tracking targets the parents' minor child rather than the parent directly.
Parents generally have a right to know their child's location and monitor their activities and communications to some degree, especially with younger children. But the scope of that right can be limited by the custody arrangement, the child's age and maturity, the legitimate interests of the other parent, and the reason for the tracking.
If there are genuine, fact-based concerns that the other parent is engaging in behavior that endangers the child's health or safety, limited GPS tracking might be justifiable. For example, if a parent has a well-documented history of substance abuse, regularly driving under the influence with the child in the car, a court may look more favorably on the other parent gathering GPS data to verify those claims. Or if a parent is suspected of leaving the child alone for long periods of time, a short-term GPS review could support a request to modify the parenting plan.
On the flip side, if the tracking parent is using GPS as a means to spy on, harass, or control the other parent without a legitimate child-related justification, they may face legal consequences. Judges frown upon using children as pawns for parental conflict. Excessive tracking can be an extension of coercive control in abusive relationships.
Even in cases where the court finds the GPS tracking was not unlawful given the circumstances, it still may reflect poorly on the tracking parent as a co-parent. The court could view it as an inability to support the child's relationship with the other parent.
Court Decisions
Case law on GPS tracking in custody disputes varies based on the nature of the tracking, the state's specific laws, the underlying reasons, and whether the child or other parent was the main target.
In a 2016 Michigan case, Bratcher v. Bratcher, a father placed a GPS device on the mother's car during a contentious divorce. The court found him liable for invasion of privacy and illegal surveillance, awarding the mother $52,000 in damages and attorney's fees. Key factors were that the device remained on her vehicle long after his parenting time concerns could justify and the father's testimony revealed an intent to track the mother's activities.
Contrast that with a 2018 Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Cruttenden. There, a father hid a GPS device in his daughter's teddy bear out of concern for her safety with the mother. The court found this was not an illegal intercept under the state's Wiretap Act because no oral communications were captured, only location data. It was akin to a parent writing down the child's location based on their own observations.
Another 2018 case,State v. Jones from the Supreme Court of South Carolina, dealt with a mother who placed a GPS tracker in her son's car to monitor his location and driving habits. The court ruled this alone did not violate the state's stalking statute because that law requires malicious intent. Concerned parents tracking a child's whereabouts did not rise to that level.
However, the court noted that secret GPS tracking could violate the statute if used to willfully harass or intimidate the child. The opinion also suggested that at some point, location monitoring may infringe on a maturing child's reasonable expectation of privacy from their parents.
Practical Implications and Advice
For parents considering using GPS tracking in a custody dispute, the wisest course is to consult with an experienced family law attorney first to assess the potential risks and benefits. If there are genuine safety concerns about a child's well-being in the other parent's care, the attorney can advise on how to gather persuasive evidence properly through the legal process rather than taking matters into your own hands.
Except in emergency situations, it is generally better to be up-front with the other parent and the court about any desire to use GPS monitoring. Transparency reduces the likelihood the tracking will be viewed as unlawful or harassment. If the court deems it appropriate, GPS tracking can be incorporated into the formal parenting plan, with clear guidelines on the scope, duration, and permissible uses of the data.
When the real goal is to restrict the other parent's behavior during their parenting time, not gather data about the child, the concerned parent should seek a court order directly prohibiting the inappropriate conduct. For example, the parenting plan can expressly bar the parent from driving with the child after consuming alcohol or drugs, require the child to be supervised by a trusted relative, or limit the parent from having overnight guests.
If you suspect the other parent has secretly placed a GPS tracker on your child or vehicle, notify your attorney right away. They can file a motion asking the court to order the removal of the device and impose sanctions if the tracking is unlawful. Preserve any evidence you have of the tracking in case it is needed later.
Be aware that any data generated from an illegal GPS device is likely to be excluded from evidence in the custody case. Worse, it may backfire on the tracking parent as "unclean hands." The court could perceive it as poor judgment and an inability to co-parent in the child's best interests.
Judges expect divorced parents to be able to manage their own parenting time without policing by the other parent, absent clear evidence of misconduct affecting the child. While each family's circumstances are unique, secret GPS tracking in custody battles often creates more problems than it solves. Parents who have concerns should work through the proper legal channels, not engage in self-help that may violate the other parent's rights.
References
Here are the references mentioned in the article:- Bratcher v. Bratcher, a 2016 Michigan case
- Commonwealth v. Cruttenden, a 2018 Pennsylvania case
- State v. Jones, a 2018 case from the Supreme Court of South Carolina
For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.