THE BERNARDS-RIDGE CONNECTION PAGE 10 NOV 2026-JAN 2027 theconnectionsnj.com Handling family law matters throughout New Jersey Sometimes Happily Ever After Needs a Rewrite. Not all stories have a fairytale ending. Our attorneys have the legal know-how and national firm resources it takes to design a successful strategy for complex, high net worth divorces.* Dedicated. Driven. Committed to helping you turn the page.* Eric Solotoff esolotoff@foxrothschild.com 973.994.7501 Jessica Diamond Lia jlia@foxrothschild.com 973.994.7517 Morristown | Princeton | Atlantic City *Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. small tracker tucked into a bag or a recorder slipped into a lunch box takes seconds to hide. During a divorce or custody dispute, the temptation to use these tools can be strong. But New Jersey courts are making clear that secretly tracking or listening in on a former partner can amount to domestic violence. A recent 2026 Appellate Division decision, M.P.M. v. K.S., offers a timely example. Although unpublished and not binding precedent, it shows the courts catching up to technology. Devices Hidden in a Toddler’s Bag On at least two occasions, a mother secretly placed an audio recording device and an AirTag in her two-year-old child’s backpack and lunch box. Her private investigator also put a GPS tracker on the father’s car. After the first AirTag was found, the father’s lawyer warned her in writing that further tracking would lead to a restraining order. The devices kept appearing. The father sought a Final Restraining Order for harassment and stalking. The mother admitted planting the devices but said she only wanted to ensure her child was not in distress during his parenting time. The trial judge denied the order, finding her purpose was to monitor the father, not to harm him. The Appeals Court Disagrees The Appellate Division reversed, found that domestic violence had occurred and sent the case back for a new hearing before a different judge. The court noted that in 2024, New Jersey added coercive control to the factors judges must weigh when deciding whether to issue a restraining order. That definition expressly includes “monitoring the person’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services.” The court was not persuaded that child safety was the mother’s only motive, since she persisted after the warning letter. On stalking, the court pointed to the statute’s definition of a “course of conduct,” which covers “following, monitoring, observing, surveilling . . . by any action, method, device, or means.” AirTags, listening devices and GPS trackers fit squarely within that language. And intent to cause fear is irrelevant; the question is whether a reasonable person would fear for their safety or suffer emotional distress. Key Takeaways • Wanting to protect your child does not give you the right to secretly track or record the other parent. • Any device that monitors where someone goes, including an AirTag, a hidden recorder or a GPS tracker, can be grounds for a restraining order. • If you keep tracking someone after being told to stop, a court is more likely to see it as harassment. • Secretly recording someone can also create separate legal problems under wiretap laws. • If you are worried about your child’s safety, talk to your attorney and let the court address it instead of using hidden devices. A restraining order can significantly affect custody, parenting time and the course of a divorce. What feels like peace of mind to you may look like domestic violence to a judge. For more information regarding divorce in New Jersey, contact Morristown-based Fox Rothschild Family Law attorneys Eric S. Solotoff at esolotoff@foxrothschild.com or (973) 994-7501 or Jessica Diamond Lia at jlia@foxrothschild.com or (973) 994-7517. LAWYER’SVIEW When Tracking Becomes Abuse: Why the Use of AirTags or Hidden Devices Can Amount to Domestic Violence By Eric S. Solotoff and Jessica Diamond Lia A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzA2NDY0