Parents used tracking devices in “serious effort” to remove children from foster care, Court finds

In BM, Re (Children: Tracking Devices), His Honour Judge Sharpe “unhesitatingly” concluded that he could not accept the parents’ evidence as to the tracking devices, finding that the devices were “part of a wider plan to know where the children were either in terms of where they were living or from where they could be snatched. And probably both.”

The case concerned four young children who are the subject of on-going care proceedings and who are presently in foster care. The parents of all four are mother (M) and father (F).

The judge noted: “At an early stage of the proceedings the three oldest children were removed from parental care and placed in foster care where they remain. The removal was due to a collection of problems but one of which was that of flight risk.”

He added: “There was a real concern that the parents might attempt to leave the area and take themselves and their children beyond the jurisdiction of this local authority and either move to a new place and lie low or instead to keep moving and so stay not just off the radar of the new authority but, as far as possible, off the grid completely.”

In May, the children’s foster carers found stitched into a bag, which had been given to one of the children by their parents, a small device manufactured by the same company that made a mobile phone M was then using. It was established to be a tracking device.

Concerned at this finding, other items previously given to the children by their parents were searched and two further devices were found, each in a toy given to a child some weeks previously and each concealed by being sewn into the toy.

The Local Authority were contacted by the foster carers to inform them of the discovery.

The matter returned to court, and the parents each filed a statement.

HHJ Sharpe said: “F was clear that the toys in question had been purchased by the parents together and that immediately after buying them the parents had walked directly to the contact centre were they had been given to the children. F was clear that the time between purchase and receipt by the children was measured in minutes. The bag in which a tracker had first been found had been a later gift, it was purchased [in April] approximately two weeks afterwards as part of Easter gifts for the children and, like the toys, was handed over on the same day as purchase.

“He was categoric in his denial that he had not placed trackers into any item and went further saying that he could offer no explanation for their presence and so assumed that they were already within the items when purchased.”

M’s statement was significantly different. M admitted both purchasing and placing trackers into the items which were bought. M was clear that she did this of her accord and without any discussion with F who had had no idea of her actions.

The judge said: “M’s reasoning was apparently that she was concerned that the children had attended contact ‘on a few occasions’ with bruising but was unable to now say why she had thought that being able to locate the children and track them would have assisted with regard to any bruising sustained. M was equally vague as to the date/s on which the tracking devices had been purchased.”

In July a little girl was born to M, making her M’s seventh child and F’s fourth.

The parents accepted the separation whilst not consenting to it, and remaining clear that their aim was for all four children to be reunited in their care as soon as possible.

Discussing the case, HHJ Sharpe said: “Notwithstanding the novelty of the subject matter, the use of tracking devices on children in care, the issue with which I am concerned is one of factual determination and therefore more than familiar to the court. The mother asserts that she and she alone was responsible for coming up with and hatching the plan to track the children. The father denies all knowledge. Where does the evidence take me? In a nutshell, do I believe the parents?

“In my judgement that question can be answered unequivocally. I do not believe what the parents tell me and I reject their evidence, not just when it conflicts with other evidence before me but when it does not too. In my judgement the decision to use tracking devices was a parental decision and one in which F was a full participant.”

The judge observed that of the two parents, F was “clearly the more articulate, the more savvy and more cerebral” in comparison to M.

The judge had previously given permission for M to be assessed as to her ability to properly participate in the proceedings without the benefit of an intermediary, and during the hearing M was supported by such an individual.

HHJ Sharpe said: “With that thought in mind, I question whether M of her own volition would devise a scheme for tracking the children, identify appropriate devices and feel confident in attempting to configure them to work directly with a mobile phone or via downloaded apps.”

Considering the motives of the father, he observed: “F has form, to use a colloquialism, when it comes to wanting to get off the grid (to use another colloquialism) as previously referenced and has not just threatened it but did so by decamping the family to the area of this Local Authority.

“Disappearing and getting rid of unwanted social services’ involvement is a clear fit with his thinking and his modus operandi.”

Meanwhile, the judge pointed to the parents’ failure to hand over phones “promptly or at all”, and their “effective fleeing” from a court hearing when being informed that phones would be required to be handed over.

Concluding the case, His Honour Judge Sharpe said: “Contrary to M’s assertion, this was not a silly idea which was never going to get anywhere and which, on even the merest reflection, was not going to achieve anything. This was a serious effort to remove the children from foster care for the purpose of removing them from the protective care of the Local Authority and back into parental care which has, on an interim basis only, been found to be wanting and which poses a risk of significant harm for these children, if not actual harm. Abduction is a criminal offence for good reason, not least because it can have such a deleterious effect upon a child.”

He continued: “The tragedy in this case is that the parents’ assessment was reasonably positive and offered prospects for family reunification which is always the starting point of Family Court proceedings. In this case as in every other the default position is “why shouldn’t the children be looked after by their parents?” In creating the circumstances for covertly tracking the children the parents are only providing answers to that question.

“Whether they can now re-focus upon their children and showing how well they can meet their needs is not just the most important thing but the only thing that matters.”

Lottie Winson