Tech abuse after separation: an order that covered her phone and home

The legal issue

After separating from her former partner, a woman stayed in the home they had shared and the tech abuse began. He had installed a smart doorbell, indoor cameras and heating controls, all run from an app under his account. A shared family account linked to her phone let him see her location and read messages that synced to the cloud. He began mentioning places she had been, the heating switched off late at night and the doorbell chimed when nobody was there. She feared that changing anything would show him she knew.

The law this rests on

• Domestic Abuse Act 2021 s.1(3): abusive behaviour includes controlling or coercive behaviour and psychological, emotional or other abuse, whether a single incident or a course of conduct.
• Domestic Abuse Act 2021 s.1(2) and s.2(1)(e): behaviour is domestic abuse where both people are aged 16 or over, are personally connected and the behaviour is abusive; people who are, or have been, in an intimate personal relationship are personally connected.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.42(1): a non-molestation order may prohibit the respondent from molesting a person who is associated with the respondent.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.42(5): the court must have regard to all the circumstances, including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.42(6): an order may refer to molestation in general, to particular acts of molestation, or to both.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.42(7): an order may be made for a specified period or until further order.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.45(1) and (2): the court may make the order without notice where it is just and convenient, having regard to all the circumstances, including the risk of significant harm if it is not made immediately and whether the applicant would be deterred or prevented from pursuing the application.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.45(3): the respondent must be given the chance to respond at a full hearing as soon as just and convenient.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.42A(1) and (2): breaching a non-molestation order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence; for an order made without notice, only conduct after the person knew of the order counts.
• Family Law Act 1996 s.62(3)(b): former cohabitants are associated persons.
• Family Procedure Rules 2010 r.10.2(4): where an application is made without notice, the witness statement must state the reasons why notice was not given.
• Family Procedure Rules 2010 r.10.6(1A) and (2)(a): the applicant must not personally serve the order, and the court must serve it if an applicant acting in person asks.
• Family Procedure Rules 2010 r.10.5: hearings on these applications are in private unless the court directs otherwise.
• GOV.UK: the application is made on Form FL401, and there is no fee to apply.

How we approached it

We advised her on safety first: call 999 in an emergency, and use a device he had never had access to for anything about the case. We advised her not to change passwords or remove his access until she was protected, because that could alert him of her being aware of his tech abuse. We helped her gather evidence quietly, using only her own phone and accounts and never going into his. Using the safe device, she photographed the settings screens on her own phone that showed location sharing, linked devices and recent sign-ins, because screenshots could have synced to the cloud he could read. She also kept a dated log of heating changes and doorbell alerts, and saved his messages about where she had been, all stored on the safe device. We advised a without notice application under Family Law Act 1996 s.45 and helped her explain in her witness statement why notice had not been given, as FPR r.10.2(4) requires. We helped her word specific terms covering location tracking, access to her accounts and the smart devices at her home, alongside a general ban on molestation. She applied on Form FL401, with our guidance. We advised her to ask the court to serve the order, then took her through a checklist to secure her accounts and devices.

The outcome

The court made a non-molestation order without notice, on the terms she had asked for, for a fixed period. It included a general ban on molestation and specific terms covering location tracking, access to her accounts and the smart devices at her home. At her request, the court served the order, so she did not have to arrange service herself. She then removed him from the shared account, reset and set up every device again under her own account, and changed her passwords to end the tech abuse. At the return hearing he did not oppose the order, and the court kept it in place for the full period. Every case turns on its own evidence, and this is not a promise about any other case.

What to take from this

• Tech abuse by a partner or former partner can be domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 definition includes controlling or coercive behaviour and psychological or emotional abuse.
• Put safety first. Changing passwords or removing someone's access too early can warn them before you are protected.
• Collect evidence quietly, using only your own devices and accounts, and never go into theirs. Photographing your settings screens with a safe device avoids screenshots syncing to a shared cloud. Keep a dated log of incidents and any messages, stored where the other person cannot reach them.
• Ask for terms that name the technology. Section 42(6) of the Family Law Act 1996 lets an order cover particular acts as well as molestation in general.
• A without notice application is possible under section 45, but your witness statement must explain why notice was not given (Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 10.2(4)).
• You must not serve the order yourself. If you are acting in person, the court must serve it if you ask. There is no court fee to apply.