As can be said with respect to practically every area across the legal field, the field of family law has been playing “catch up” in response to technological developments, often reacting years after a new technology has become a staple for consumers. These new technologies increasingly offer their users novel methods of surveillance, making them ripe for exploitation by abusers as means to intimidate and control. The question is whether courts will be able to navigate the abuse of technology to protect victims. Fortunately, recent decisions from New Jersey’s Appellate Division demonstrate a willingness to treat technology-facilitated abuse with the gravity it deserves.

Small, inexpensive tracking devices—such as Apple’s AirTags, Samsung’s Galaxy SmartTags, and Tiles—have emerged as among the most problematic forms of this technology. Originally designed to help users locate lost items, these coin-sized trackers can be easily concealed in a victim’s (or a their child’s) belongings—a bag, a backpack, or even sewn into clothing. In a recent New Jersey Appellate Division case, a mother admitted to hiding both an audio recording device and an AirTag in a hole in her child’s backpack and lunchbox before custody exchanges, claiming she wanted to ensure the child was safe during the father’s parenting time. M.P.M. v. K.S., No. A-3462-23 (App. Div. Feb. 10, 2026). The appellate division found this conduct constituted domestic violence, even absent any intent on the mother’s part, as a reasonable person would objectively fear for his or her safety in such circumstances. GPS devices attached to vehicles present similar concerns, though some jurisdictions have reached the troubling conclusion that placing a tracking device on a former partner’s vehicle does not alone constitute a threat sufficient to support a protective order. York v. York, 203 N.E.3d 866 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).

Drones are another device which have become relatively affordable to consumers, raising significant concerns about their potential use as a tool for abuse. Drones equipped with cameras allow abusers to surveil victims from the air, enabling surreptitious viewing into areas that individuals typically view as private. In one recent New Jersey case, a wife realized while doing yardwork that her husband—a network engineer—was using a drone to spy on her at the marital home even after she had obtained civil restraints prohibiting him from entering the property or having contact with her. S.H.H. v. M.A.D., No. A-0369-24 (App. Div. Jan. 29, 2026). The drone’s search history was discovered on a joint Amazon account, and a file on the wife’s laptop titled “Wife in backyard” contained twenty-two photographs and a video of her captured on the day she reported the drone sighting to police. Florida courts have similarly recognized that the use of drones can contribute to causing substantial emotional distress under stalking statutes.

The connected home presents a particularly insidious avenue for abuse. Smart thermostats, lighting systems, security cameras, and door locks can all be controlled remotely, often by whoever retains access to the network or associated accounts. In the same New Jersey case involving the drone surveillance, the wife testified that her digital lights kept turning on and off, her smart thermostat was being adjusted up and down, and her home security cameras would inexplicably deactivate, all connected to a home router with a VPN that her network engineer husband could access remotely. She also discovered her laptop had been remotely locked by an administrator. The husband admitted that he locked the laptop to prevent anyone else from using it. This type of abuse allows the perpetrator to maintain psychological control over the victim even when physically absent, creating an atmosphere of constant surveillance and unpredictability in what should be a safe and private space.

Audio recording devices and concealed cameras have been around far longer and predate the current smart home era to some extent. Courts have long recognized the invasiveness of hidden listening devices placed in a partner’s room or personal spaces. Modern versions of these devices are smaller, cheaper, and more sophisticated than ever before. The same technology that allows parents to monitor a sleeping infant can be repurposed by an abuser to eavesdrop on private conversations, track a victim’s movements within the home, and gather information to use as leverage or intimidation. Ring cameras and similar smart home security systems, while generally installed for home protection, can similarly be accessed remotely to monitor a victim’s comings and goings, identify visitors, and maintain surveillance. Even built-in automobile GPS systems can be a tool for abuse when one with access to the vehicle’s connected app uses it to track the driver of the car.

At least in New Jersey, this abuse is not escaping oversight and regulation. In the AirTag case, the appellate division reversed the trial court’s denial of a final restraining order, determining that the lower court had erred as a matter of law by finding the mother’s purported lack of intent to harass the father to be dispositive. The Appellate Division emphasized that the standard for harassment is an objective one, and the secretive and repeated placement of tracking and surveillance devices in a child’s bag was found to be so egregious as to constitute statutory domestic violence, even without a prior history of abuse between the parties.

In the drone and smart home abuse case, the appellate division upheld the trial court’s findings that the husband committed the predicate act of stalking when he surveilled his wife via drone on at least two occasions and interfered with her property by remotely locking her laptop. The court also found harassment based on the history of the parties’ relationship and the absence of any justifiable explanation for his conduct.

Outside of New Jersey, a limited number of courts have addressed these issues. North Carolina’s appellate court upheld a lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss charges against a father who admitted placing an AirTag in his child’s diaper bag while subject to a domestic violence protection order, based on statutory language prohibiting the use of electronic tracking devices by parents subject to such orders. State v. Murray, 919 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. Ct. App. 2025). Florida has similarly recognized that drone surveillance can constitute stalking under its protective order statutes and has upheld the issuance of a protective order based on the use of a drone to spy and frequent drive-bys. Rosaly v. Konecny, 346 So.3d 630, 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022).

While New Jersey jurisprudence appears to be trending in a more protective direction, it remains to be seen how courts will handle the abuse of other emerging technologies. Artificial intelligence presents particular concerns—it can be misused by abusers to gather and organize data on their victims, spoof voices for fraudulent communications, and generate deepfakes and other sexually explicit material without consent.

Family law practitioners should be prepared to counsel clients on these evolving risks and to advocate for courts to recognize technology abuse as the serious form of domestic violence that it is. The devices that promise to make our lives easier can, in the wrong hands, make them more dangerous.

Reprinted with permission from March 10, 2026 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal© 2026 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.