Can a Divorced Florida Parent Track Their Children With GPS?
A parent wants to know that a teenager arrived at school, that a child made it safely to practice, or that a young child who wanders can be located quickly. Those concerns are understandable. But after parents separate, the same technology can expose the other parent’s movements, reveal a protected address, or become another source of conflict.
Florida law does not categorically prohibit divorced parents from tracking their children. It does, however, restrict when a parent may install or use a tracking device or application without consent. Depending on the circumstances, unauthorized tracking can be a felony.
For divorced or separated parents, the most relevant lawful options are both parents’ consent, a qualifying sole-custody arrangement, or an order expressly authorizing tracking. Shared parental responsibility, payment of the child’s phone bill, and an existing location-sharing account do not automatically answer the legal question.
At Mockler Leiner Law, P.A., Richard Mockler and Angela Leiner help parents address these disputes through carefully drafted agreements, parenting plans and custody litigation, and court orders that define what each parent may actually do.
Florida’s GPS Tracking Law: What Section 934.425 Prohibits
Section 934.425, Florida Statutes, regulates the installation and use of tracking devices and tracking applications. Its reach extends beyond a device secretly attached to a vehicle.
The statute defines a tracking application by its primary purpose of identifying a person’s location or movement. A tracking device is defined by its primary purpose of revealing its location or movement through electronic signals. GPS technology, qualifying Bluetooth trackers, and location-sharing applications can therefore raise issues under the statute. The particular product and how it functions matter.
Installing a tracker and using an existing tracker are separate issues
Unless an exception applies, subsection (2) prohibits knowingly installing or placing a tracking device or application on another person’s property without that person’s consent. It separately prohibits knowingly using a tracking device or application to determine another person’s location or movement, or the location or movement of that person’s property, without consent.
That distinction matters when a family already uses location sharing. A parent does not necessarily avoid the statute by saying, “I installed it before we separated,” or “The application was already on the phone.” Continued use requires its own legal analysis.
The statute also does not require proof that the parent intended to frighten someone or win a custody case. A claimed safety motive does not, by itself, establish an exception.
What changes when a divorce petition is filed?
Section 934.425(3)(a) creates a presumption that consent has been revoked when the person who gave consent and the person who received it are married and either spouse files a petition for dissolution of marriage.
The statutory trigger is filing. Parents should not assume that prior permission continues until service of process, a temporary hearing, or entry of the final judgment.
However, this provision concerns consent between spouses. The statute separately addresses a parent’s authority to track a minor child. It is therefore too broad to say that filing a divorce petition automatically makes every instance of child tracking illegal.
The practical questions are more precise: Who is being tracked? Whose property is involved? Have the parents separated? Does the required consent exist? Does a statutory exception or court order authorize the conduct?
Separation can change the rules before anyone files for divorce
Section 934.425(4)(e) provides a parental exception for tracking on a minor child’s property under four alternative circumstances:
The parents or legal guardians are lawfully married, are not separated or otherwise living apart, and either consents.
The person installing or using the tracker is the child’s sole surviving parent or legal guardian.
The parent or legal guardian has sole custody of the child.
The parents or legal guardians are divorced, separated, or otherwise living apart, and both consent.
The two-parent consent provision is not limited to couples with a pending divorce. Separation or living apart can make it relevant before a petition is filed. It can also matter to unmarried parents living apart.
Conversely, the married-parent exception does not expressly identify filing a divorce petition, standing alone, as disqualifying. Parents who remain lawfully married and are neither separated nor living apart require a different analysis from parents maintaining separate households. The separate presumption concerning a spouse’s consent must still be considered.
These distinctions are why a blanket statement that “parents can always track their children” is as unreliable as a blanket statement that “tracking becomes illegal the moment a divorce is filed.”
Does Shared Parental Responsibility Allow Either Parent to Track the Child?
Shared parental responsibility does not independently establish permission to track.
Under Florida’s parental responsibility definitions, parents sharing responsibility must confer so that major decisions affecting their child’s welfare are determined jointly. That framework does not erase the tracking statute’s specific requirements.
Nor does the fact that a child is presently exercising time-sharing with one parent necessarily satisfy the statutory exception. Section 934.425 does not create a general “my parenting time” exception to its consent requirements.
Parents also should distinguish ordinary communication from continuous monitoring. A parenting plan allowing telephone calls or video contact does not necessarily authorize a parent to follow the child’s location throughout the other parent’s time-sharing.
Our discussion of shared parental responsibility and ultimate decision-making authority explains how Florida courts allocate decision-making rights when parents cannot agree.
Does Sole Parental Responsibility Override the Tracking Statute?
Sole parental responsibility does not override a criminal statute. The more useful question is whether the parent’s actual legal rights bring the tracking within an exception.
Section 934.425(4)(e)3 expressly recognizes a parent or legal guardian with “sole custody.” That language cannot be ignored: a parent who qualifies for that exception does not also need to satisfy the separate provision requiring both separated parents to consent.
The difficulty is that Florida family law generally describes parenting rights through parental responsibility and time-sharing. Section 61.046 defines sole parental responsibility as a court-ordered relationship in which one parent makes decisions regarding the child. Section 61.13 permits sole parental responsibility with or without time-sharing for the other parent.
The tracking statute does not define “sole custody” or expressly equate it with every award of sole parental responsibility.
A parent with sole parental responsibility therefore may have an argument that the sole-custody exception applies, but the order must be examined carefully. The argument may present different issues when the other parent retains substantial time-sharing than when one parent holds exclusive custodial authority. Having most overnights, being designated for school registration, or holding ultimate authority over one subject does not automatically establish sole custody.
Where the terminology leaves room for dispute, an order expressly authorizing tracking provides a clearer basis than relying on an assumed equivalence between different statutory terms. The statute already supplies a separate exception for court-authorized tracking.
Can a Parent Rely on Owning the Phone, Paying the Bill, or the Child’s Permission?
Paying for the phone does not resolve the consent issue
A parent may own the account, buy the device, and pay every monthly bill. Those facts can matter, but they do not create a general exemption from the prohibition against using tracking technology to determine another person’s location without consent.
There is a difference between ownership of equipment and authority to monitor the person carrying it. A parent also should not assume that knowing an account password establishes continuing permission to use that account.
A child’s agreement should not become a substitute for addressing parental consent
A teenager may want both parents to see the teenager’s location. That preference can support an agreement or a request for court authorization.
Nevertheless, the parental exception expressly calls for both parents’ consent when they are divorced, separated, or otherwise living apart, unless another exception applies. A minor’s willingness to activate location sharing should not be treated as a dependable workaround for an unresolved parental objection.
The child’s age, maturity, understanding, and privacy interests can inform the family court’s decision. They do not justify placing the child in the middle and asking the child to secretly defeat the other parent’s position.
A parent-owned vehicle presents a separate statutory issue
Section 934.425(4)(h) contains a distinct exception for an owner or lessee tracking a motor vehicle during the period of ownership or lease, subject to the statute’s conditions.
This may matter when a teenager drives a vehicle that a parent actually owns or leases. The provision addresses removal before a title transfer or lease expiration, written consent to leave the tracking technology in place, and a specified manufacturer situation.
That exception should be evaluated on its own terms. It is not a general exception for phones, backpacks, or devices placed in the other parent’s vehicle. Nor does an exception under this statute authorize violating a parenting order, injunction, or other applicable law.
A Written Agreement Can Establish Clear Permission
When both parents agree that tracking serves the child’s needs, a written agreement can document the consent contemplated by section 934.425(4)(e)4.
That particular provision does not expressly require written consent. Writing is nevertheless valuable because it establishes what the parents authorized, when they authorized it, and whether permission covered tracking during both parents’ time-sharing.
An agreement should identify the child, device or application, authorized users, purpose, and permitted periods of tracking. It should address whether permission includes installing the application, maintaining it, viewing live location, receiving alerts, and accessing stored location history.
Consent to one feature should not be stretched into consent to every feature. Permission to receive an arrival notification is different from permission to review months of location history.
When divorce proceedings have begun, the agreement should expressly confirm the parents’ current consent. Relying on an old family practice leaves unnecessary room for disagreement.
A private agreement also has limitations. Consent may later be disputed or withdrawn, and an agreement cannot privately rewrite an existing injunction. If the arrangement is meant to last, the parents should consider obtaining an order that expressly authorizes it.
Put Tracking Rights and Data Access in the Parenting Plan
A durable arrangement should address both the right to track and the right to obtain the information generated by tracking.
An order stating only that a parent “may use a location application” may leave unanswered whether the other parent must provide access, keep the device operational, or refrain from disabling the service during time-sharing.
A carefully drafted parenting plan should address:
The approved devices or applications and the specific tracking functions authorized.
Whether tracking operates during both parents’ time-sharing, only during travel, or under defined safety circumstances.
Each parent’s access to live location, alerts, and historical information, including any justified restrictions.
Responsibility for subscriptions, charging, connectivity, account administration, and replacement devices.
Limits on sharing information with other people, using it to harass a parent, or attempting to access unrelated accounts.
Procedures for outages, disputed misuse, changes in technology, and later review of the arrangement.
Access should be technically workable. Separate authorized user accounts may be more appropriate than requiring parents to share a personal account containing unrelated information.
The plan also should address predictable failures. A dead battery, poor signal, or malfunction should not automatically be treated as deliberate interference. At the same time, intentional disabling or withholding of access should not be excused by an order too vague to enforce.
Florida’s child-records provisions do not expressly establish a universal right to another parent’s location-app credentials or continuous GPS access. Addressing those rights directly avoids making the dispute depend on an expansive interpretation of general language about records.
Why express judicial authorization matters
Section 934.425(4)(d) exempts a person authorized to install, place, or use tracking technology pursuant to a court order. The Legislature added that exception through chapter 2025-81, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 2025.
An approved parenting plan should therefore do more than record that the parents once agreed. Where appropriate, the order should expressly authorize the specified installation and use and establish the corresponding access obligations.
When authorization rests independently on an operative court order, a parent’s later objection does not, by itself, eliminate that authorization. The order’s scope and any later modification, stay, or superseding order still control.
Can the Court Authorize GPS Tracking Over a Parent’s Objection?
A parent can ask the family court to resolve a tracking disagreement and expressly authorize an appropriate arrangement.
There are two related legal components. Section 61.13, Florida Statutes, provides the framework for parenting decisions based on the child’s best interests. Section 934.425(4)(d) supplies the tracking statute’s express court-order exception.
The request should explain both. A general appeal to parental concern is less useful than a specific proposed arrangement supported by evidence.
Resolving a shared-parenting impasse
In Malha v. Losciales, 306 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the court explained that parents who cannot agree on a major decision may present the dispute to the trial court for resolution according to the child’s best interests. It upheld enforcement of an existing parenting plan concerning extracurricular activities where consent had been unreasonably withheld.
A footnote also records that the father sought to prevent the mother from tracking the children through GPS. However, the opinion does not analyze section 934.425 or establish an unrestricted parental right to track children. Its significance here is the framework for resolving parental disagreement and distinguishing enforcement from modification.
Applied to tracking, that framework supports presenting a genuine impasse to the court. The requested relief should identify the monitoring proposed, the child’s need, and the protections that address the other parent’s objections.
Must the judge “impose consent” on the objecting parent?
A parent may request an order requiring cooperation or resolving the disputed decision over the other parent’s objection. However, the proposed order should not depend solely on declaring that an unwilling parent has somehow consented.
The more direct statutory approach is express judicial authorization under section 934.425(4)(d), together with specific obligations necessary to implement it. Depending on the evidence and the relief properly before the court, those obligations might include enabling the approved service, providing authorized access, and refraining from intentional interference.
This is an application of the court’s parenting authority and the statute’s express exception. It does not mean every request for GPS monitoring must be granted.
When is a motion sufficient, and when is modification required?
During a pending case, a parent may seek appropriate temporary or final relief. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.100(b) requires a written motion, unless made during a hearing or trial, that identifies the grounds and requested relief with particularity.
After final judgment, the existing parenting plan becomes critical. Resolving an impasse within that plan can differ from imposing a new, continuing monitoring obligation that changes the parties’ substantive rights.
Under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.110(h), proceedings to modify a final judgment generally must begin by supplemental petition rather than motion. A contested modification of parental responsibility or a parenting plan also requires the applicable showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances and the child’s best interests.
Calling a request “clarification” does not resolve that distinction. The substance of the requested change controls. Our child custody modification guidance addresses the additional burden involved in changing a final parenting arrangement.
If the parents have signed an agreement but no final judgment has been entered, a different procedural analysis may apply. See our discussion of agreed parenting plans before final judgment.
What Evidence Supports—or Undermines—a Tracking Request?
The court needs a reason tied to this child’s circumstances.
Evidence may include documented wandering, developmental needs, missed transportation, unsafe driving, unexplained disappearances, or a particular travel arrangement. A focused proposal explaining when monitoring will operate and how it will address the identified risk is more persuasive than an unrestricted demand for access.
The opposing parent may raise substantial concerns: prior harassment, misuse of location information, disclosure of confidential addresses, interference with time-sharing, or the child’s distress. Refusing unlimited surveillance does not automatically demonstrate poor parenting.
Under section 61.13, relevant considerations include the child’s developmental needs, the parents’ ability to communicate and act consistently, their ability to protect the child from litigation, and evidence of domestic violence or abuse.
Depending on the circumstances, an arrival alert, agreed check-in, travel itinerary, or limited monitoring period may address the concern with fewer opportunities for conflict. Equal access may promote transparency in some families; a history of abuse may make equal access dangerous in others.
A request for emergency relief requires facts establishing the claimed urgency. Filing a motion does not itself authorize tracking while the parent waits for a hearing. Our Florida emergency hearing and custody order guide discusses the importance of presenting a genuine emergency through the proper procedure.
Tracking the Child Can Become Surveillance of the Other Parent
A child’s location may reveal where the other parent lives, works, receives treatment, worships, or spends time. This overlap deserves direct attention in any agreement or proposed order.
Permission to monitor the child should not be treated as unrestricted permission to monitor the other parent. Using the child’s device to follow an adult, confront that adult at unexpected locations, or investigate the adult’s private relationships can raise separate statutory and family-law issues.
Tracking disputes can form part of a broader pattern of coercive control in Florida family law cases. Where the facts satisfy the legal requirements, stalking or domestic violence relief may also be available.
Section 934.425(3)(b) creates a separate presumption of revoked consent when either person files for protection against the other under the listed injunction statutes. Parents should have existing protection orders reviewed before entering any tracking arrangement. Private consent does not amend a judicial no-contact or protective restriction.
Criminal Exposure, Evidence Preservation, and Enforcement
An ordinary violation of section 934.425 is a third-degree felony. The ordinary statutory maximums include five years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine under sections 775.082 and 775.083. The tracking statute provides an enhanced second-degree felony when unlawful tracking is used to commit or facilitate a qualifying dangerous crime.
A tracking allegation can therefore create consequences beyond the parenting dispute. At the same time, an accusation does not establish a violation. The analysis includes the technology involved, knowing conduct, consent, ownership where relevant, statutory exceptions, and the terms of any court order.
Parents should preserve relevant messages, consent agreements, account invitations, device information, alerts, and existing orders. A parent discovering suspected unauthorized tracking should document the discovery and obtain advice about stopping the monitoring while preserving evidence.
Location information also requires careful interpretation. A map may show where a device was located without proving who carried it or what happened there. Section 90.901, Florida Statutes, requires authentication of evidence. Timing, account identity, missing records, and the source of the information can become important at an evidentiary hearing.
Where an existing order requires tracking or access, enforcement depends on the order’s actual language. In Cancino v. Cancino, 273 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), the court reversed indirect criminal contempt findings based on insufficiently definite shared-parental-responsibility language. The decision illustrates why specific commands matter.
A carefully drafted order provides a stronger foundation for contempt and enforcement proceedings than a general expectation that parents will cooperate. If monitoring itself creates a safety concern, appropriate relief may include restrictions on tracking, modification of an existing authorization, or a protective injunction when its separate requirements are met.
Frequently Asked Questions About Tracking Children After Florida Divorce
Is it illegal to track my child after a divorce petition is filed?
Not automatically in every circumstance. Filing creates a presumption that consent between spouses has been revoked. The separate parental exception generally requires both parents’ consent when they are divorced, separated, or living apart, unless another exception—such as qualifying sole custody or court authorization—applies.
Can I continue using an application installed before separation?
Prior installation does not establish continuing authority to use it. The statute separately regulates use, and separation, revoked consent, and court orders can change the analysis.
Do both parents have to consent in writing?
The separated-parent exception requires both parents’ consent but does not expressly require that consent to be written. A specific written agreement provides much better evidence of permission and its limits.
Can a judge allow tracking if my former spouse refuses?
A parent can request express court authorization and appropriate cooperation requirements. The court must consider the child’s best interests and the applicable procedural requirements. Section 934.425 expressly recognizes tracking authorized by court order.
Does sole parental responsibility mean I can track without permission?
The statute expressly exempts qualifying tracking by a parent with sole custody. It does not expressly define that term as identical to sole parental responsibility. The actual parenting order must be reviewed; explicit tracking authorization can resolve uncertainty.
Am I automatically entitled to the other parent’s tracking data?
Do not assume so. Permission to install an application and a duty to provide another parent access are different issues. The agreement or parenting order should specify access to live location, alerts, and historical information.
Can the other parent turn off tracking during time-sharing?
The answer depends on the lawful basis for tracking and any governing order. If an order requires the service to remain active, intentionally disabling it may support enforcement. Without such an order, disputed consent requires a different analysis.
Does concern for my child’s safety excuse unauthorized tracking?
Concern alone does not establish a statutory exception. Document the specific risk and seek consent or appropriate court authorization. An immediate danger may justify emergency court relief or law enforcement assistance, but filing a request does not itself grant permission.
Does the parental exception continue after my child becomes an adult?
The parental exception concerns minor children. Once the child becomes an adult, that exception no longer supplies authority. The adult child’s consent or another applicable legal basis must be considered.
Tampa Family Law Attorneys for GPS Tracking and Parenting Disputes
A tracking dispute requires attention to the criminal statute, the parenting order, the technology, and the family’s actual circumstances. A broad promise to “keep the child safe” does not replace enforceable terms.
Richard Mockler, Angela Leiner, and Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. represent parents in divorce, paternity, parental responsibility, time-sharing, modification, and enforcement matters. We help clients evaluate proposed monitoring, negotiate workable protections, and present contested requests through the appropriate court procedure.
From our Tampa office, we serve families throughout Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, Polk, and Hernando Counties, including Tampa, Brandon, Riverview, Valrico, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and Wesley Chapel.
Speak With an Experienced Tampa Family Law Attorney
Before installing a tracker, continuing disputed monitoring, or agreeing to unrestricted access, understand what Florida law and your parenting order permit.
To discuss GPS tracking, parental responsibility, or a parenting plan dispute, call Mockler Leiner Law, P.A. at (813) 331-5699 or contact us online to schedule a consultation.
