Published on 19 September, 2024 | Emma Hubbard
In recent years, our increasing use of smart devices has transformed our professional and personal lives.
Those changes have not been confined to younger age groups traditionally thought most alert to the emergence of new trends.
Data released only last month revealed that the number of individuals of pension age with a mobile ‘phone had increased nearly six-fold in the space of a single decade (https://www.statista.com/statistics/271851/smartphone-owners-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age/).
This common reliance on ‘phones and tablets enables family members who might live on different continents to remain very much connected.
It is, in a sense, the technological tie that binds.
Although it has great positive potential, that same tie can be abused and bind people against their will and even without their knowledge.
A good number of the cases handled by myself and my colleagues have included mention of former partners or spouses – some of whom are separated parents – employing various technological means to keep track of their movements and those of their children.
I was reminded of that while reading a recent article in The Times about the frequency with which people are now using apps in order to see what their other halves are up to (https://www.thetimes.com/article/3c5dfe63-62be-4ea8-b2eb-4a14b085dd63?shareToken=34c5a085bebd8d25a814bf08f45867f2).
Although it can be argued that they have a valid purpose – for instance, allowing parents to ensure that they and their children are okay – but very much depends on an individual’s point of view.
After all, a tool to determine whether your loved ones are safe can also be an instrument of control or intrusion.
My experience in dealing with claims of coercive or controlling behaviour is far from exceptional.
Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that almost 44,000 offences of coercive control were recorded by police forces across the country in the 12 months to March 2023 – a rise of nearly seven per cent in a year (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseprevalenceandtrendsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2023#:~:text=Controlling%20or%20coercive%20behaviour,the%20year%20ending%20March%202022.).
The increase in such behaviour had seen such offences included among those listed in the Serious crime Act 2015 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76).
However, recognition of the fact that coercive behaviour often continues after couples have split led to the later removal of a provision that it could only be used in relation to individuals who were living together (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/part/6/crossheading/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour).
The use of apps to track individuals could give rise to allegations about coercive control.
I believe that avoiding such dispute and distress really depends on two things: purpose and perspective.
Fundamentally, what are the apps intended for?
Clearly establishing when, how and for who they will be used means creating some handy ground rules, even for families whose relationships are healthy and happy.
Without wishing to seem at all pessimistic, I should point out that none of us know what the future holds.
Issues with apps and agreements only tend to surface when other areas of the relationship are in difficulties too.
Without any understanding or boundaries, it can be hard once a marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation has broken down to maintain that the intention behind use of an app was wholly proper.
That brings me to the point of perspective.
Whilst those eager adopters of technology – and there are many, of course – might see only benefits, those who are not so keen might only see the downside.
How someone believing themselves to be the victim of coercive or controlling behaviour feels is key.
In my opinion, these apps are rarely the cause of a relationship collapsing in themselves.
Nevertheless, just as users might download them simply to be aware of where and how children are, they also need to be aware of how their continued use could be regarded post-split.
My suggestion would be to delete them as soon as a separation happens in order not to have them appear even remotely sinister.
The example provided by The Times of a spouse being tracked to the kitchen toaster may seem light-hearted.
Yet anyone whose activities are scrutinised to such a degree without their consent and after a break-up would be quite rightly forgiven for objecting.
