BM using SS iPhone to track his every move when he's with us
Forums:
Is this allowed? Is there anyway around this? She has set his restrictions so that the location services can't be turned off. DH's order states he can't restrict SS's cell phone use in anyway, so not bringing it is not an option either.
I have nothing to hide and maybe this shouldn't bother me, but I hate that she knows where we are at every second of the day!! Any advice would be appreciated.
Could it depend on semantics
Could it depend on semantics of the order? If it is about DS's access to use of the phone, not BM's tracking.
But if she bought the phone I can't see how you could get round it. Unless she starts using the information she gets against you, then you could say it's breaching your privacy?
I don't know. It's a toughie this one.
My ex did this will his
My ex did this will his daughter's phone. BM2 (their mom), put it on silent and "accidentally" left it in a rental vehicle when they drove to Florida (we are all in Cleveland, OH). Ex freaked, but could not tell her why because then he would have to admit tracking them during spring break. We have no idea where the phone went, but they eventually got it back LOL
I'm sure the court order
I'm sure the court order doesn't say the kid must have phone A over phone B. Get him a cheap track phone and give mom the number.
When you leave the house, leave the IPhone and take the cheap phone. That way the kid still has access to a phone.
Get into court and have that crazy clause removed.
Collect SS's phone as soon as
Collect SS's phone as soon as he arrives for visitaiton and turn it off. Give it to him for an evening check in for 15mins. The CO may stipulate no restriction of SS's cell phone use but the law says that neither parent can interfere with the the time the other parent spends with the child. BM's toxic stalker crap does interfere because she obviosly uses the location information to put pressure on the Skid.
So, since jammers are illegal in the US, get an electronics product shipping metalized bag and put SS's phone in it as soon as he arrives for visitation. It stays there until he leaves or he gets his 15mins to call his mom each evening.
End of problem. If BM gets lippy about it all you ahve to say is ... his phone was on the whole time. If she stays lippy, tell her that you will see her in court.
Okay, Rather than
Okay, Rather than unilaterally cutting the Skid off from his phone during visitaiton in violation of the CO, comply with the CO. Rather than risk irking the person in the black robe with the Fisher-Price wooden hammer find a shark attorney, own BM's ass in court, then put the phone in a static protection bag. Regardless deal with it aggessively and immediately rather than tolerate the bullshit. Often the mentally challenged of the legal profession that seem to often end up on the family law bench forget that the CO has to be livable for all. Ordering that a kid's telecommunications can't be controlled by a parent is just stupid. BM in your case just wants to be the one to control SS's telecommunications rather than your DH having that ability asa a parent. In today's day and age what better consequence than losing all ability to talk, text, or otherwise piddle around online? I for one would have no issue taking my kid's phone even with a CO stipulating that I couldn't. By the time it ended up in court it would very likely be a mute point. A shit crazy BM ranting in front of the court that she couldn'd get hold of or track her kid with a spy app would send just the right message to the Judge IMHO.
Having a killer attorney that could lead BM down the path of proving her crazy would likely make the whole process very entertaining and give you what you are trying to accomplish.
I am not an attorney so the advice of the attornies should certainly be considered. Use the input and engage your attorney to deliver what you desire. If your attorny can't deliver, find one that can.
Our first attorney was a compromise, cave in, and "you should work with them" kinda person. If they were capable of being reasonable we would not have needed an attorney. We fired her and found an attorney that went to the wall for what we wanted. We never lost. The Sperm Clan cringed when an envelope with our lawyer's letterhead showed up and they did what they were told. It was always entertaining to hear them get pushy on an issue then STFU when the lawyer's envelope showed up. It did not take too many of those until they just did what they were told without us having to pay $200+/- for our attorney to write them a letter outlining the consequences that would befall them if they didn't do what they were told.
Don't forget ... have fun!!! }:)
All in my legal layman's opinion of course.
You're funny.
You're funny.
OMG - BM has gotten soooo
OMG - BM has gotten soooo many slaps, she should in a continuous state of reeling.
It's really kinda pathetic.
It's really kinda pathetic. I often wonder how she doesn't feel shameful and embarrassed. :?
OP here. Thanks everyone for
OP here. Thanks everyone for your input. This is all so frustrating. DH never agreed to this. For all of you who are saying just limit the phone use, or leave it a home, etc.. he tried that. BM took him to court, asked for this order, and the judge granted it. Gotta love family court. Here's what it says:
DH shall no longer prohibit the use of the cell phone given to minor child while the minor child is in his care. Further he shall be the one to carry the cell phone if they are not home in order to secure the same if the minor child has no ability to easily store the phone while out of the home (ie. in his bookbag).
So here we are. We know she's tracking because she is telling SS did you have fun at so and so today, I noticed you left school at such and such time today, etc. We can't turn off the location services because she has set them to restricted so they can't be turned off. I'm at a loss here.
I agree --- insane. DH can
I agree --- insane.
DH can not prohibit use of phone given by BM.
So skid can sit at dinner table and play on phone. Skid can play games on phone all night. Skid can text whoever whenever.
According to this language, skid can sext and DH can't prohibit it.
And the craziest part of all, Dad has to carry phone.
The order clearly says DH can
The order clearly says DH can carry the phone. Taking possession of the phone upon the start of visitation is not preventing use. It is merely "carrying" the phone. Putting it in a static protection bag while it is being carried, in my electrical engineer's opinion, does not prevent the use of the phone it only prevents incoming calls and tracking. Since it will be taken out of the static protection bag for outgoing calls there is no prevention of use. It can be used at will by the Skid who only has to ask for it. Even the law can't argue with electrons or radio waves. Only the laws of physics apply when it comes to electrons.
I am sure you can turn off the location service if you take the phone to the phone provider and have those services disabled completely. Give that a try. That deals with the issue without violating the CO at all.
Who provides the phone and service is probably a good question to ask? If it is BM then there may not be much you can do regarding turning off the location service. If the Skid is on your family plan, you own the usable services so turn off the location service and keep it off until you decide otherwise.
To solve the problem consistently, you could store the phone on top of the microwave while the Skid in on visitation. Microwaves and electronics make all kinds of pretty sparks and lightning. }:) Just kidding of course.
Call your attorney. See what your legal options are.
So your husband should go
So your husband should go back to court and address the tracking issue.
Of course the judge may want to know why he has a problem with BM knowing where the kid is. If BM isn't popping up and causing trouble, the judge may think your husband is being petty.
Yes,but not the tracking
Yes,but not the tracking issue.
That order does not say BM
That order does not say BM can track the kid during his time with his father. What in the world are you reading?
Maybe the OP posted a another part of the order in invisible ink that that the rest of us can't see.
I don't think you can ever
I don't think you can ever ever fully trust kids, not even the best behaved who has neve ever given reason for suspicion. I personally do check on my kids, at random times, once in a while. Not constantly. Constant monitoring isn't good, but neither is complete 100% "trust".
My initial reaction to reading this was that's his mother, whatever. I suspect that's what a judge would think too.
I didn't read why the use of
I didn't read why the use of a different phone wouldn't work? You wouldn't be limiting the kid access to a phone while with dad, it just wouldn't have the tracking enabled?? Does the order refer strictly to the one that he already has?
If he's not allowed to buy a
If he's not allowed to buy a tracfone, which I still believe he could, then buy your own item that has tracking service in it and require the boy or his mother to carry that at all times when at mom's house. The judge has already set the precedent. There is no way he can refuse dad the same privilege.
When BM gets all histrionic in court over this, I would stand up (or, you know, lawyer would) and be all magnanimous with a compromise position: each parent can provide a tracfone to be used at their own home. No spyware allowed. Language must be in the order that states the purpose of the tracfone is for communications and nothing else. Not games, not spyware, not net access.
That way each parent can continue to control game access in their own home. And the purpose of the phone in the first place is clarified and documented so parents don't have to have gamers at the dinner table or spyware in their homes.
Failing all that, let's just go to a veterinarian and have the kid chipped. Let's all follow him.
"DH shall no longer prohibit
"DH shall no longer prohibit the use of the cell phone given to minor child while the minor child is in his care."
Where EXACTLY does this state that the cellphone given to kid has to be the one from BM It doesn't. That right there is a oops big enough to drive a semi truck through. If Bm were as clever as she professes to be she would have been sure that language read "cell phone GIVEN TO MINOR CHILD BY THE BM blah blah".
There is also absolutely nothing in that clause that states the BM can give the kid a phone with a tracking aka spying device to be used to track the child 24/7 during Dad has said minor kid. You will not get me to believe that any judge in the family court system (pro-BM or not), intended for either parent to gain the ability to track comings and goings with this clause. Nope. Didn't happen. 1) Family court order between two parents does not trump state laws nor would a family court judge be stupid enough to believe it could.
Have your DH contact a lawyer (not your little family court lawyer) and file an immediate call for clarification and/or removal of said clause.
HRNYC no, this mother is not 'monitoring her child' she is violating the rights and privacy of another household by using her son's cell phone as a means to illegally intrude on rights of another person (Dad/SM, not SS). Just as you can't sneak into my home and put an eavesdropping gadget on my phone or a GPA device under my vehicle this clause in no legal way meant Mommy can track the other family using a little spy-boy gadget.
OP, DH wants that clause stepped out into direction guideline of phone usage. The whens, how, and what-fors.
Nope. You didn't get to hand
Nope. You didn't get to hand pick 'the phone' a contract lawyer would tear your buns up. Does the clause actual state 'the phone BM gave kid'? Nope.
And no a family court judge can not over rule state laws. Just like a state law does not over rule federal law. A family CO is not 'law'. It is a written agreement between two parents with legal means to protect their agreement (aka contempt).
" What state law do you think
" What state law do you think this overrides?"
" If they happen to be with the kid, so be it" Yep. That'd be the uh-oh area. Are you being deliberately dense? Yes a judge can say kid can have/use a phone. Number of calls, times of calls yadda yadda yadda....tracking people however are an entirely different ballpark.
Still playing word games,
Still playing word games, HRNYC. It's not about 'a phone'. Nope it's what BM is sing the device for. You damn straight better believe court is worth it. I don't take my personal rights and/or laws meant to protect me as well as all other citizens lightly. Not even for a control freak BM.
This is exactly how I feel
This is exactly how I feel about it. The intent of the clause is for mom to be able to talk to kid. That can be achieved by a tracfone. If I were the lawyer I would have no trouble arguing dad's in compliance with the tracfone. And to drive home the point, I would send a device home to mom's.
BM will back off when she realizes ghis knife cuts both ways and unless dad or sm are violent offenders that knife certainly does cut both ways and judge cannot pretend it doesn't.
Kid was six in late summer of
Kid was six in late summer of 2012 and given as seven first part of November 2012.
So about 9-10ish
I somehow doubt BM has to monitor kiddo cutting classes or sneaking out Dad's running wild.
Forgive my simple mind but my
Forgive my simple mind but my sd15 is constantly late or missing school. We don't have tracking. All we need is school records. Pretty simple to establish whose day it happened on. BM's the one who calls it in excused and DH is the one who calls in and says no it's not. Why the need for the technology?
I meant in the context of
I meant in the context of fighting between parents, not in the context of ensuring a child's behavior.
If a parent wants to let their kid be late on their own custody time they pretty much can. Short of going to court, that's just the way it rolls. Ask dh, we're living it.
So my pea brain still doesn't see what advantage there is to a reasonable parent to have tracking on a reasonably behaving kid who happens to be at the other trustworthy parent's house. To me the only reason is to make the kid feel like BM is Everywhere and All Powerful and Dad Can't Protect You From My Wondrous Power Plus He's Just The Enemy Anyway. And to spy on the ex, of course.
Unless you think you're going to prove your ex is taking your kid to casinos and brothels, tracking info isn't needed in court to prove tardies and absences. Schools kindly keep that record for you!
If I want a record of any day
If I want a record of any day of kid's school exit (or the last six years for that matter), it's a mere mouse click away through portal. Exact time kid was checked out, reason and who's signature signed to remove them early. Same with if kid arrives late to school. The school doors are locked and can not be entered unless one buzzes and the office releases the door. How much more documented proof and from the school itself would you possibly need if as you say, the only reason you track your kid via cell is to know when kid is picked up?
Click. Print. End of story.
android has it too. Depending
android has it too. Depending on the phone, it could be a free download or paid for. When I got my first droid I had a paid for app but that was like 5 yrs ago.