Stop stalking?

[Before you can make things better, you have to stop making them worse...]

Hi guys,

A friend of mine is being stalked by his uBPDexw.  They have four kids together.  ExW is using D12 phone GPS to coincidentally meet them at locations during his visitations.  She also follows his vehicle. 

I looked up laws in his state and it appears that all of the state stalking laws do not really allow a person to do anything unless/until there is reason to suspect a physical threat to someone. (That doesn't seem too preventative to me)

A rather simple solution would be to simply turn off phones during visitations, however, I suspect with this type of person, the stalking will not cease, but just change methods.  Stalking will likely just start while he is leaving known kid events... .or kids will get more frantic calls interrogating them.

She does have a history of violence and has the potential to escalate.

Any ideas I can share with him that may be useful?

Thanks!

[Sunfl0wer]

Hi guys,

A friend of mine is being stalked by his uBPDexw.  They have four kids together.  ExW is using D12 phone GPS to coincidentally meet them at locations during his visitations.  She also follows his vehicle. 

I looked up laws in his state and it appears that all of the state stalking laws do not really allow a person to do anything unless/until there is reason to suspect a physical threat to someone. (That doesn't seem too preventative to me)

A rather simple solution would be to simply turn off phones during visitations, however, I suspect with this type of person, the stalking will not cease, but just change methods.  Stalking will likely just start while he is leaving known kid events... .or kids will get more frantic calls interrogating them.

She does have a history of violence and has the potential to escalate.

Any ideas I can share with him that may be useful?

Thanks!

[bravhart1]

I would send a email to mom stating that she showed up at xy and z locations and times at the same time as he and the kids did. That he feels that this is no coincidence and that if mom happens to continue to show up at his same locations that this will be taken to court to decide the obscurness of the coincidence.

[Sunfl0wer]

Thank you bravehart,

It may also be helpful to mention that exW, in the past, has tried to harm him with kids present.  He pursued a RO, however, negotiated and received a permanent civil RO on both himself and ex.  The thought was that pursuing a regular one way restraining order has an expiration date, but the two way one that they both signed is permanent.

However, it only states that neither can approach each others home without permission to do so beforehand.  It does not include anything about 'chance' public encounters.

[livednlearned]

Who bought D12 the phone and who is paying for the plan?

[Sunfl0wer]

Who bought D12 the phone and who is paying for the plan?

I will ask.

The phone was turned off for part of the visit to allow dad to get her off 'his tail' while she was in fast pursuit of his vehicle.

My own experience with uBPD persons is that removing the means of obsessive behavior does not typically stop the obsessive behavior, rather just redirects it.

The kids have community activities and she inserts herself during these times and even without the phone, she will still have some means to stalk him.

I imagine he could turn off the phone, cease all known community and school activities on his parenting time and such, however, I also imagine the result will be an infuriated/escalated uBPDexW and really disrupted kids.  I imagine that she will redirect her efforts of monitoring stalking back to enlisting the kids to sneak and stalk dad around the home, taking pics, attempts at pc access, and such.  (All of which has been secured because of past efforts)

The current order was working for a while.  It seemed to have a 'humbling/calming' affect to the behaviors.  I suppose I hoped there was some legal loophole in getting a 'full' RO more easily in this situation of stalking or some kind of 'RO addendum' without needing proof of intent to harm. 

[livednlearned]

In my state, it's a felony to install surveillance on a phone that you don't own, especially if the plan is not paid for by you. This applies to children's phones, too, especially when there are separate homes/divorce.

Also, not sure if this is how all surveillance software works, but the forensic IT guy I talked to said that tracking software can work even when the phone is turned off. This includes the ability to hear conversations up to 15 feet. I imagine the same is for GPS tracking, though I'm not certain of that.

To eliminate the capabilities of some surveillance software, you have to remove the battery.

[ForeverDad]

Some phones don't have removable batteries, if that is your case then turn them off and put them in a metal box.

Beware of pursuits.  He could get stopped and ticketed while she just drives on by.

Has he sought suggestions or strategies from his local police or experienced attorneys?

[Sunfl0wer]

Thank you guys!

LNL: I'm glad you brought up surveillance laws.  One of my thoughts was to possibly suggest he install some on one of the kid's phone for reviewing her txts, to stay a step ahead of her for everyone's protection.  Knowing that law is something to be aware of is quite useful in several respects.

FD: Yes on both, he is waiting to hear from his lawyer.  The only thing I could think to suggest is to keep a log of stuff.  I find it pretty disappointing that there are so called 'stalking' laws, yet they don't seem much different than regular OP laws in that there is still a requirement of feeling in danger.  Heck, if it were me, someone showing up at places I am at constantly would feel dangerous to me for sure, however, how could I ever express to a judge what I mean by danger without specific threats and such?  A bit discouraging I think.

[ForeverDad]

Generally courts require incidents, documented if possible, before acting.  However, women usually do get a Default Credibility in court, after all, the USA has the "Violence Against Women Act", it doesn't say "People".  It has happened in some places that a woman can claim to be "fearful" and that may be enough to incent the judge to rule on the side of caution.  Yeah, I know, that may work for you but not for your friend.  Men often aren't seen as victims or targets so it's harder for them to get legal support.

Other ways to describe it is to be consistent that he doesn't feel Safe with unrestricted contact and encounters.  In other words, he can't say one time he's fearful and other times say he's not fearful.  Even if it is a public place, he can still say he's fearful of what she might do.  If she has a lawyer then that lawyer will try to get him to appear inconsistent in expressing his concerns.  So he needs to get his story straight, get familiar with how to describe his concerns when quizzed from different directions.

[livednlearned]

Have you looked at harassment laws?

Also, I'm wondering if you are interpreting the word danger more narrowly than how the courts define it?

[bravhart1]

So if he already HAS a restraining order in place, why hasn't he called to report her breaking it?

[Sunfl0wer]

FD: What is generally sufficient for 'documentation?'  Wow! Violence Against "Women," how unfortunate for men who are being threatened, especially in more covert/insidious ways.

LNL:  No, I did not want to spend any extensive time doing work he can do himself.  I appreciate the feedback here.  You guys often have a wealth of collective insight or an angle that he may not get from his L or otherwise.  I just wanted to post to see what you guys generally have to say... .not figure it all out for him... .in case I can offer something different.  (I am also a bit curious in matters of self protection generally speaking). I'll let him do the law research and wait on his L to guide him in that manner.

BRVH: I may have my terminology incorrect.  He has a permanent order that states they cannot approach one another's residence without permission from the other.  She is following him in places not his home.  As far as I understand, she is actually not in violation of the current order.  She has been 'respectful' of current order and it sedated her behavior issues at that time.  It appears she is now looking for loophole ways to monitor/control him within her legal limitations.  (I believe she was originally distracted due to a r/s she entered, possibly that r/s is not providing a sufficient distraction now.)

Thank you for your input all!

[david]

A little levity

My ex bought our son an Iphone4s years ago. She would call to talk to him and mention in her conversation where we were at the time. Creeped me out a bit. I work in an airport so I asked a pilot friend to take the phone with him when he flew to the Caribbean. He was coming back later that day. I told him the ringer was off and not to answer it.   Son didn't realize what I did.

Our son got creeped out too so he started turning the phone off when we went somewhere. Eventually she turned the phone off.