Family court decisions that include tech abuse: Hague Convention application

Hague application to return a child

Canada is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This Convention sets out a process for countries to collaborate when a child is taken from one country to another. There are exceptions for returning the child to the original country in situations where they may face a grave risk of harm on return. (Learn more about the Hague Convention.)

Surveillance and monitoring: Hartley v. Hartley, 2023 ONSC 2563

The father had applied under the Hague Convention to have the child returned to Ohio. The mother, who was in Canada with the child, did not want the child sent back to Ohio because she believed he would be at grave risk of harm there. The family court considered the mother’s evidence of tech abuse as well as other forms fo violence as it decided whether to grant the father’s request.

Type of tech abuse:

The father extensively spied on the mother. This included using four surveillance cameras and three Amazon Echo/Alexa devices in the home. The father could see and hear the woman and the child in all areas of the home. He would use the various devices to belittle and disparage her. The father’s explanation for the monitoring devices was that they were needed for security reasons and that he used some of the devices as a way to communicate and connect with the mother and child.

Finding:

The court did not accept the father’s explanation for the surveillance. The judge found that the father’s surveillance of the family was controlling and psychologically damaging to the child and abusive to the mother:

[i]n essence, the mother and the child were captives in their own home. Their activities in the home and on the property were monitored and controlled by the [father].

Based on evidence of tech abuse as well as other forms of violence, the court found that the mother had met the high legal threshold of proving that there would be a grave risk of harm to the child if he were ordered returned to Ohio.

Outcome:

The father’s Hague Application was dismissed. This meant the child did not have to return to Ohio.