Loading…
Guardian access and consent
A named parent or guardian can be given access to the conversations their young person is in — where consent has been recorded, as a reader and nothing else, and in a way that young person can see on their own screen. Your organization decides whether it is offered at all.
Say it first
There is no version of safeguarded messaging that is not that, and a page that danced around it would have earned nothing. So here is the fact, and then here is the whole argument for it.
Those conversations are already happening. Today they happen on WhatsApp, on a volunteer’s personal phone, where nobody is watching and nothing is kept. That is the thing guardian access is being weighed against — not a world where a child messages an adult unobserved and safely.
Approved leaders can read every conversation on this platform whether or not any parent is ever given access. That is how the product works and it is stated on every thread. A guardian is one more reader, never the reason oversight exists.
Whether a named parent joins the small group of people who can already read, and on what terms. That is a narrower question than “should adults read children’s messages”, and it is the only one this page can honestly claim to answer.
Recorded consent. Reading only. Every opening written down. And the young person told, by name, who holds it. Take any one of those away and this becomes surveillance with a nicer word on the button.
Everything below is what those terms look like when they are built rather than promised.
What a guardian sees
A parent shown only their own child’s replies would read a grooming exchange as unremarkable. Half a conversation is not a smaller amount of the truth. It is a misleading amount.
Before anything can be read
Guardian access is not a role somebody is given and then trusted with. Three separate conditions have to hold every single time a conversation is opened, and they are re-checked on every read rather than cached when the link was made.
Guardian access is your organization's setting to make, inside a line it cannot cross.
A guardian link on its own grants nothing at all. Consent must have been recorded and must not have been withdrawn.
The rule lives in the database, underneath every screen and every route in the product.
What guardian access is not
Every other thing a person might assume comes with parental access does not come with it here, and most of them are impossible rather than merely disallowed.
Nor can we read it. The rule that lets a leader or a guardian open a conversation has no clause for AngelLink staff — working here grants no way into a young person’s messages, and that is a deliberate limit on our own power rather than an oversight.
The part that matters most
A safeguarding tool that prevents one kind of unobserved watching while quietly enabling another has not solved the problem. It has moved it. So guardian access is not secret from the person it is about.
Not “a parent or guardian may have access”. The person’s name, the relationship recorded for them, and the date consent was recorded.
Said in the same breath as the name. “Your mother can read your messages”, on its own, is the frightening half of a sentence.
A disclosure with no next step is an announcement. The screen names who can act and what they can do about it.
Consent
Consent is the gate this whole feature stands behind, so it is treated as a live condition rather than a signature collected once at sign-up.
Below your organization’s consent age, a young person does not join a conversation until consent has been recorded for them. It is a gate on participation rather than a box ticked afterwards.
A young person’s account with no date of birth reads as “consent not started”, never as “consent not required”. Guessing that an undated account belongs to an adult is exactly how an unconsented child ends up in a live conversation.
The age of digital consent ranges from 13 to 16 across the EU alone, and a US chapter brings a different threshold again. One hard-coded number would be wrong somewhere, so the threshold is configured per organization and read at the moment the decision is made.
It is not an overnight job or a queue. The condition is evaluated live every single time a conversation is opened, so the read after the withdrawal returns nothing.
The consent record stays, and so does the trail of what was opened while it stood. That is what makes it possible to answer, a year later, who could read what and when — which is the question that actually gets asked.
This is how the product behaves, not legal advice. Which consent regime applies to your organization — PIPEDA, Quebec Law 25, UK or EU GDPR, COPPA for a US chapter — is a question for your own counsel, and the settings exist so their answer can be configured rather than negotiated with us.
Request access
Access is granted organization by organization. Tell us how your volunteers message young people today and what your safeguarding team needs, and we will set up one chapter with your consent age, your curfew hours and your supervisors.
If you are a parent and you have read this far, the person to speak to is your own youth leader. Guardian access is arranged inside your organization, and we cannot give an individual an account.