In family law, tools that courts rely on can shape far more than legal outcomes. They influence a parent’s dignity, a child’s perception of their caregiver, and the broader tone of reunification.
When alcohol is involved, remote breathalyzer monitoring systems have become an essential tool for judges and attorneys working to ensure child safety while supporting recovery. A common question with alcohol monitoring in family law is whether the addition of GPS tracking is a necessary feature. The answer is simply: no. The reality is that adding GPS tracking to family law alcohol monitoring risks undermining the very goals family courts are designed to protect.
To provide insight into this growing concern, we spoke with two respected family law professionals: Jillian Duggan-Herd, CFLS and Partner at CAGE & MILES LLP, and a second attorney who, while choosing to remain anonymous to avoid endorsing a specific brand, felt strongly enough to be compelled to speak on this issue. Their perspectives illuminate why privacy should remain a cornerstone of alcohol monitoring in custody cases—and why GPS tracking may ultimately do more harm than good.
"Criminal justice monitoring tools can undermine the goals of family court by creating unnecessary adversarial dynamics," says Duggan-Herd. "They often position one parent as the 'enforcer' against the other, potentially weaponizing monitoring rather than supporting rehabilitation. Family court should prioritize remedying concerns while minimizing disruption to parent-child relationships, both in practice and appearance."
This is a critical distinction. Family courts are not designed to punish; they are tasked with healing. While alcohol monitoring in family law does involve oversight, its purpose is to support reunification and demonstrate accountability—not to surveil or control. Unlike punitive GPS tracking, which can escalate mistrust and reinforce adversarial dynamics, alcohol monitoring can be implemented voluntarily and should be framed as a shared step toward restoring stability. When done thoughtfully, it mitigates conflict by providing clear, consistent data without adding layers of suspicion or control that often inflame disputes.
"Privacy concerns in family court are pivotal because the parent-child relationship extends far beyond court jurisdiction," Duggan-Herd explains. "While case records may be technically public, the long-term impact of divorce, custody disputes, and substance use issues demands a more nuanced approach to privacy."
The monitored parent did not agree to be tracked—only to be monitored for alcohol use. That distinction matters. A parent's location has no bearing on whether they are sober and safe around their children. Inserting GPS tracking into a process intended to confirm sobriety expands the scope of surveillance beyond what was agreed upon. In high-conflict cases, this overreach can do real harm. Dignity and discretion matter. A parent who feels shamed or over-monitored is less likely to engage in good faith, potentially prolonging conflict and delaying reunification. Effective solutions must prioritize psychological comfort as much as evidentiary rigor, especially when the goal is to preserve—not punish—family relationships.
"Privacy is always an issue that the Court must balance, i.e., inherent privacy rights of the user and the safety of children involved," says the anonymous attorney. "The Soberlink device is portable and discreet and can effectively be used anywhere without the user drawing attention to him/herself and without restricting the user’s right to travel freely."
Discretion enhances compliance. When parents feel the ability to prove sobriety—rather than simply being tracked—they are more willing to engage consistently and voluntarily. Devices like Soberlink are intentionally designed to be discreet, portable, and minimally invasive. Adding GPS tracking would contradict that purpose, introducing a layer of surveillance that undermines the very discretion that makes compliance more likely. In family law, where cooperation and dignity are essential, introducing features that feel punitive can backfire—creating resistance where trust is most needed.
So why has GPS even become part of the conversation? "GPS tracking and similar features present a double-edged sword in monitoring compliance," Duggan-Herd acknowledges. "On one hand, they can neutralize allegations from the asserting party. On the other hand, constant monitoring can feel invasive and create psychological barriers to compliance."
Getting a parent to agree to alcohol monitoring is already a significant step—one that often involves vulnerability, negotiation, and trust. Adding features that don’t directly serve the court’s core concern of sobriety risks tipping the balance. Family law clients are often navigating emotionally charged situations. The introduction of location tracking may exacerbate feelings of mistrust and intensify resistance, undermining the very cooperation courts are trying to promote.
"Reframing participation as a demonstration of commitment to one’s children—'I have nothing to hide and will do anything for my kids'—often helps shift focus from privacy concerns to the ultimate goal of family preservation and well-being."
That reframing is easier when the tools themselves feel reasonable and respectful. "The discreet nature of Soberlink makes it much more likely for an individual to voluntarily agree to the protection the device provides for the entire family," the anonymous attorney notes.
The value of this approach lies not just in compliance but in sustainability. "Many of the tools used in criminal cases are simply not as good," the attorney continues. "Soberlink provides ongoing daily accountability that can assist a user in achieving and maintaining sobriety for the long haul rather than just to meet probationary type timeframes."
Choosing the right technology isn’t just about outcomes—it’s about experience. If the journey toward reunification feels punitive, it may foster resentment and instability. If it feels fair and respectful, it can build momentum toward healing.
As Duggan-Herd outlines, effective adoption of monitoring tools should consider "transparency in how the technology works, what data is collected, and how results are interpreted; and real-time results that allow for immediate intervention when needed."
The anonymous attorney echoes this sentiment: "The Court should always be guided solely by what is in the best interests of the children of the family. The current iteration of the device acts as a non-invasive supervisor that fairly balances all of the competing interests."
Conclusion: Toward a More Respectful Model of Monitoring
Judges, attorneys, and family law professionals must continually evaluate whether the tools they recommend serve the unique needs of families in crisis. GPS tracking may seem like a safeguard, but it can erode trust, diminish dignity, and create resistance. Alcohol monitoring systems designed specifically for family law—without invasive features—offer a more sustainable, respectful solution.
Preserving a parent’s dignity isn’t an added benefit; it’s a prerequisite for meaningful compliance and genuine rehabilitation. As courts seek to balance accountability and compassion, the choice becomes clear: respect privacy, reject GPS, and support solutions built to protect families, not police them.