Parents hid trackers in toys to see where kids 'could be snatched' from foster care

A mum and dad secretly stitched tracking devices into their children'stoys so they could spy on where they were living in foster care or identify "where they could be snatched" from, a Family Court judge has ruled.

At the time the devices were discovered, the couple, who “give the impression of being transient in their lifestyles”, had three children together, with the woman pregnant with their fourth. The youngsters, all below school age, are in foster care and the subject of care proceedings.

In May, the children's foster carers discovered a tiny tracking device, manufactured by the same company as the mother's mobile phone, sewn into a bag which had been given to one of the children by their parents.

READ MORE: Teen who died of meningitis 'failed' after ambulance didn't take her to hospital

READ MORE: Trio who kidnapped schoolgirl, 12, from Asda car park and raped her jailed

In his judgement published today, Judge Malcom Sharpe said other items previously given to the children were also examined, and "two further devices were found, each in a toy given to a child some weeks previously and each concealed by being sewn into the toy".

He added that the parents were contacted, and denied knowing anything about the devices, and made counter-accusations against the local authority concerned in proceedings about whether they had done this deliberately to discredit them. In later statements given to the court in Liverpool, the mother accepted sole responsibility for the idea of purchasing trackers for the execution of the plan, but the judge did not accept that the father would not have known.

The mother, who also has three older children — two of whom live with family members, and one who has been adopted — said she had planted the trackers because she was concerned that the children had attended meetings with her "on a few occasions" with bruising. However, Judge Sharpe said she was unable to say "why she had thought that being able to locate the children and track them would have assisted with regard to any bruising sustained".

In his written judgment, he continued: "I do not believe what the parents tell me and I reject their evidence, not just when it conflicts with other evidence before me, but when it does not, too. In my judgment, the decision to use tracking devices was a parental decision and one in which the father was a full participant.

"In fact, I am inclined to the view that the father was probably the driver behind what has turned out to be a disastrous diversion from the progress the case had been making."

He added that he was "unhesitating" in concluding that he could not "accept the parents' evidence as to the tracking devices and therefore reject it". He also said: "These devices were part of a wider plan to know where the children were, either in terms of where they were living, or from where they could be snatched. And probably both."

Judge Sharpe also found that the parents had made a "concerted effort to conceal the truth" by not handing over their phones so that they could be examined in relation to the tracking devices.

The judge concluded that the parents now needed to "take stock" and reflect on his findings and "start to work out how they can address the damage they have caused" to their wider case surrounding the care of their children.