Can You Use AirTags in an Arkansas Family Law Case?
Apple AirTags and similar tracking devices are becoming more common in family law disputes, especially when co-parents are already in conflict and one parent wants more information about where a child is during the other parent’s parenting time. But just because the technology exists does not mean every use of it is wise, or lawful.
In Arkansas, this issue is more nuanced than many people realize.
AirTags and Tracking Adults
As a general rule, placing an AirTag or other tracking device on your spouse, ex-spouse, or former partner without consent is a serious legal risk. In 2025, Arkansas amended its harassment statute to specifically address tracking devices. The law now makes it harassment, in certain circumstances, to use a tracking device to determine a person’s location or movement without that person’s consent. Act 600 of 2025 added both the tracking-device language and a statutory definition of “tracking device.”
That means using an AirTag to monitor an adult partner or former partner can move beyond “bad behavior” and into conduct with possible criminal implications. Even apart from the criminal statute, Arkansas recognizes invasion-of-privacy claims, including intrusion upon seclusion, which can create additional exposure depending on the facts.
Put simply: do not place an AirTag on your spouse or ex-spouse.
What About Tracking a Child?
This is where the law gets more complicated.
Arkansas’s 2025 legislation includes an explicit parental exception. The statute says it is not an offense under that subsection if “a parent or legal guardian of a minor uses a tracking device to track the location or movement of the minor.” In other words, Arkansas carved out a legal exception for parents tracking their own children.
So does that mean a parent can always put an AirTag in a child’s backpack, shoe, or belongings?
Not necessarily.
The criminal statute may provide a measure of protection, but family court is a different arena. Custody decisions in Arkansas are governed by the child’s best interests, and courts are focused not only on legal technicalities but also on parental judgment, boundaries, cooperation, and whether one parent is using the child as a means to monitor or control the other parent. Arkansas custody law directs courts to decide custody according to the welfare and best interest of the child.
That means a family court judge could view tracking very differently depending on why it is being used and how it is being used.
When Tracking May Look Reasonable
There are situations where a parent’s use of a tracking device may appear understandable or even prudent, such as:
a young child who is not yet old enough to manage a phone,
a child with special needs or safety concerns,
a child who walks to school or activities,
a history of wandering, elopement, or other legitimate safety concerns,
or a parent using a device simply to make sure the child arrived safely.
Used in that limited way, a tracking device may be framed as a child-safety tool rather than surveillance.
When Tracking Starts to Look Bad
The problem is that these devices are often not used only for child safety. In high-conflict cases, they can become a way to monitor the other parent’s movements, relationships, household, or routines during that parent’s time.
That is where trouble begins.
For example, a court may take a dim view if a parent uses an AirTag to:
monitor where the other parent sleeps or spends time,
confront the other parent about every stop or detour,
interrogate the child about what the tracker revealed,
create conflict during the other parent’s custodial time,
or use tracking data to micromanage or harass the other household.
Even if the tracker is technically attached to the child’s property, the practical reality may be that it is being used to follow the other parent. A judge may see that as poor boundaries, unhealthy co-parenting, or evidence of controlling behavior.
Why This Is a Family Law Problem Even if It Is Not a Criminal Problem
This is the distinction many people miss.
A parent may believe, correctly, that Arkansas law allows a parent to track a minor child. But that does not automatically mean the conduct will play well in a custody case. Something can be arguably lawful under the criminal code and still be viewed negatively by a domestic relations judge evaluating the child’s best interests, co-parenting ability, and each parent’s capacity to foster stability.
In other words, the question is not only, “Can I do this?” The better question is, “How will this look in court?”
Practical Guidance for Parents
If you are considering using an AirTag or similar device in connection with your child, proceed carefully.
A few principles matter:
Use it for a genuine child-safety reason, not to monitor your ex.
Avoid secretive or retaliatory use.
Be mindful of whether the device is effectively tracking the other parent’s home, vehicle, or personal movements.
Do not use the information to create unnecessary conflict.
Assume the judge will eventually hear about it.
In some cases, the better course is transparency, agreement, or a narrowly tailored parenting-plan provision that addresses safety technology directly.
Bottom Line
In Arkansas, placing an AirTag on your spouse or ex-spouse is a dangerous idea and may expose you to criminal and civil consequences. Tracking your child is more legally defensible because Arkansas law includes a parental exception for tracking a minor. But in family court, legality is only part of the analysis. The real issue is whether the technology is being used for the child’s safety—or as a tool to monitor, control, or escalate conflict with the other parent.
If you are dealing with a custody dispute involving AirTags, Life360, location sharing, or other digital monitoring, it is worth getting advice before taking action. In family law, technology issues often become evidence issues faster than people expect.
Contact us today to discuss with one of our experienced family law attorneys the best steps to take in your particular case.