Technology-facilitated abuse is increasingly featuring in family law disputes, yet it remains absent from the statutory definition in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Trevona Hettiarachchi, partner in the divorce and family team at Stewarts, examines how tech abuse arises in divorce and child arrangements cases, why it can be difficult to evidence and whether the law is keeping pace with emerging forms of domestic abuse.
Family law practitioners will be aware of the broad statutory definition of domestic abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (“the Act”). One notable omission from the Act, however, is any express reference to technology-facilitated abuse, despite its inclusion in the statutory guidance and evidence of its growing prevalence as a form of domestic abuse.
This is in contrast to economic abuse, psychological abuse and emotional abuse, which are specifically referenced under the Act.
How tech abuse can occur during relationships, post-separation and in child arrangements cases
Tech abuse refers to the use of digital devices, online platforms or connected technology to harass, stalk, monitor, control or otherwise abuse another person. It is often a vehicle for more familiar forms of domestic abuse, including coercive control, stalking, harassment, emotional abuse and economic abuse.
The domestic abuse organisation, Refuge, has reported that referrals to its specialist tech team in the first six months of 2024 were 92% higher than in the same period in 2019. It is clear from these figures that tech abuse should not be treated as a marginal issue in family practice.
In relation to separating spouses and partners, tech abuse may include access to emails with solicitors, control or monitoring of online banking and social media posts, password changes, image-based abuse and the use of location data and spyware to monitor movements. It can also arise where one party controls certain devices in the home, such as thermostats, music systems and even smart fridges.
In relation to children, it may arise through covert recordings, hidden tracking devices in a child’s clothing or belongings, monitoring through tablets or games consoles, or repeated contact outside agreed times and channels.
Why tech abuse can be hard to prove in court
Tech abuse is widely under-recognised. Cybersecurity company Kaspersky’s 2026 study found that 45.7% of respondents had experienced at least one form of tech abuse in the previous 12 months, but only 32% correctly understood what the term meant.
Clients may therefore describe instances of tech abuse without identifying them as part of a wider pattern of abuse. Practitioners should enquire who has access to which devices and accounts, whether passwords are shared, and whether the other party can still see location data, cloud backups or a child’s device if there are any concerns about possible tech abuse. The National Cyber Security Centre has produced guidance for practitioners supporting victims of technology facilitated domestic abuse in this respect.
Even where tech abuse is recognised by victims or their lawyers, proving it in court can be difficult. Digital evidence may be extensive, including messages, screenshots, app data and recordings, but it can be hard to distinguish ordinary communication from a wider pattern of abuse.
The family justice system has long struggled with evidence of non-physical abuse more broadly: the June 2020 Harm Panel report identified continuing concerns about how the family court system recognises and responds to allegations of domestic abuse.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner warned in its 2025 report of a lack of understanding and a practice of minimising domestic abuse in the family court. In some cases, this can mean perpetuating trauma caused by these experiences.
Covert recordings and coercive control
The use of covert recordings in evidence raises particular issues. The Family Justice Council’s May 2025 guidance on the use of covert recordings in proceedings concerning children makes clear that the court will consider issues such as authenticity, completeness, relevance, privacy and proportionality, and it emphasises the particular risks of recording children.
A covert recording will not necessarily assist as evidence in a case; it may instead lead to further disputes about the weight to be afforded to it, admissibility and impact on children’s welfare.
Abuse does not necessarily end at separation. Divorce negotiations may create new routes for tech abuse as communication continues through proceedings.
In practice, tech abuse during divorce negotiations may mean one party accessing privileged communications, monitoring negotiation strategy through shared devices or accounts, or using persistent messaging to destabilise the other party during proceedings.
How tech abuse can affect child arrangements
Technology is increasingly central to co-parenting after separation. While it can be a valuable tool for communication between parents and indirect contact with children, it can also create new opportunities for monitoring, harassment or hindering contact. A parent may, for example, interfere with contact arrangements by failing to facilitate virtual contact or claiming technical issues.
Where tech abuse is identified, the Children Act 1989 Practice Direction 12J is engaged, and the court must consider domestic abuse when determining child arrangements. Depending on the facts, this may justify the court imposing limits on frequency and mode of contact.
Is the law keeping up with lived experience?
The good news is that the current law is flexible: tech abuse can fall within the broad statutory definition of domestic abuse, and judges will take the details of the case into account. However, perhaps the legislation should go further to reflect reality.
In 2023, the government accepted a parliamentary recommendation that tackling tech abuse should be a priority, and recent evidence heard by a House of Lords select committee has called for explicit recognition in the Act itself; its current position in the statutory guidance may mean it is too easy to overlook.
Whether or not legislation changes, as technology has become increasingly embedded in our daily lives, family practitioners need to be able to spot tech abuse early and recognise it as domestic abuse, not a marginal issue.
About the author
Trevona Hettiarachchi is a partner in the divorce and family team at Stewarts. She advises on all aspects of family law and has developed a specialist practice in complex private children law matters, advising on all issues involving children upon parental separation, including contact arrangements, welfare-related disputes, Schedule 1 claims and highly contentious Children Act proceedings, particularly those involving protracted multi-layered proceedings. Trevona is regularly instructed in relation to matters that have international elements, including international and domestic leave to remove cases, cross-jurisdictional matters and child abduction.
