Two parents were told they were damaging their own efforts to have their children returned to them after planting covert tracking devices into their children’s bag and toys while they were in foster care.
The case of RE BM (Children: Tracking Devices) centred on the discovery of tracking devices hidden inside a bag and toys given to the children during a supervised contact session with their parents. The parents, referred to as M (mother) and F (father), have a history of instability and prior involvement with family courts. M has three older children, two of whom live with extended family and one who has been adopted. The family had moved into the jurisdiction of the current local authority without informing their previous authority and had a pattern of disappearing and reappearing unpredictably, raising concerns about their reliability and intentions.
The case was brought to the courts after the discovery of the devices by the fosters carers. The local authority was notified, prompting an urgent investigation into the parents’ intentions. Presiding, His Honour Judge Sharpe said the parents had made 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.’
Initial statements from the parents were contradictory. F denied any involvement, suggesting the devices were pre-installed. M admitted to purchasing and inserting the trackers but claimed she acted alone. However, during a directions hearing on 6 June, both parents fled the courtroom when asked to surrender their mobile phones for forensic analysis. F later revised his account, admitting to making false allegations against a social worker.
Judge Sharpe conducted a fact-finding hearing on 2 September 2025, applying key legal principles including Re B [2008] UKHL 35 (standard of proof), RW v NPTCBC [2013] EWCA Civ 1227 (inquisitorial role of the court), and Re A [2015] EWFC 11 (evidence-based findings). He also referenced R v Lucas [1981] 1 QB 720 regarding the evidential weight of lies.
The court rejected the parents’ explanations, finding both were complicit in the plan to track the children. Judge Sharpe highlighted the implausibility of M acting alone, given her intellectual limitations and the technical nature of configuring GPS devices. He noted F’s history of obstructing social services and the couple’s failure to cooperate with forensic investigations, including selling or resetting their phones.
The judgment ends with a call for the parents to reflect and rebuild their case, acknowledging that while reunification is the default goal in family proceedings, their actions have significantly jeopardised that possibility.
“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.
“These parents now need to take stock, reflect upon my findings and start to work out how they can address the damage they have caused to their own case.”
