A few weeks ago, a screenshot started circulating among parents online. It showed an email from Google to a child who was about to turn thirteen. The subject line read: "Ready to take charge of your Google Account?" Inside, Google explained that the child could now choose to remove parental supervision. They could keep their parent involved, or they could manage the account on their own. The choice, Google made clear, belonged to the child.
Not the parent. The child.
If you are a parent who has spent years managing your child's digital life, setting boundaries, monitoring activity, and making decisions about when and how your child engages with technology, this email should bother you. It bothered me.
When a child with a Google account managed through Family Link approaches their thirteenth birthday, Google sends them an email. The message varies slightly depending on region, but the core content is the same. The child is told they are now old enough to take charge of their account. They are presented with options. They can keep their parent's oversight, or they can end it.
Google frames this as empowerment. A milestone. A coming-of-age moment in the digital world. But here is what it actually does. It creates a dynamic where the child must now decide whether their parent should continue to have access. It takes a family decision and turns it into a unilateral choice that the child controls. It positions Google as the one granting permission, and the parent as the one whose role is now optional.
That is not how family decisions work. That is not how parenting works. And it should not be how technology companies interact with children who are still minors.
The age of thirteen matters legally because of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which restricts how companies can collect data from children under thirteen. Once a child turns thirteen, companies no longer need parental consent to collect that child's information. That is a regulatory threshold. It has nothing to do with whether a child is ready to manage their own digital life.
Google did not choose thirteen because research shows that is when children develop the executive function, risk assessment, and impulse control necessary to navigate the internet independently. They chose it because that is when federal law no longer requires them to involve parents.
But parenting does not stop at thirteen. Decision-making authority does not transfer at thirteen. Thirteen-year-olds still live in their parents' homes. They still rely on their parents for nearly every aspect of their lives. They are still children.
A parent might decide that their fourteen-year-old is ready for more independence. Another might decide their sixteen-year-old still needs oversight. Those are family decisions, shaped by the individual child, the family's values, and the parent's judgment. Google should not be inserting itself into that process by offering the child an exit ramp.
When Google emails the child directly, they are doing more than providing information. They are creating a power dynamic. The child now knows that Google has given them a choice. The child now knows that continued parental oversight is optional. Even if the child does not act on that knowledge immediately, the relationship has changed. The parent is no longer the one who decides when supervision ends. Google has handed that decision to the child and told them it is theirs to make.
This is not neutral. It is not just a courtesy notification. It is an assertion of authority. Google is telling the child, "You are old enough now. You get to decide." But the child is still a minor. The parent is still legally responsible. The parent is still the one who will deal with the consequences if something goes wrong. And yet, Google has bypassed the parent entirely to have this conversation with the child.
If this were any other area of a child's life, we would recognize it immediately as inappropriate. If a school told a thirteen-year-old they could choose whether to attend class, we would object. If a doctor told a thirteen-year-old they could decide whether to continue a treatment plan without consulting their parents, we would object. If a landlord told a thirteen-year-old they could sign their own lease, we would object.
But because this is happening in the digital space, because it is framed as empowerment, because it comes from a company we use every day, it gets treated as normal. It is not normal. It is overreach.
Google will point out that parents also receive a notification when their child gets this email. That is true. Parents are told their child has been contacted. They are told the child can now choose to remove supervision.
But a notification is not the same as consent. A notification is not the same as decision-making authority. Being told after the fact that your child has been given a choice is not the same as being the one who decides whether that choice should be offered in the first place.
The parent did not ask Google to email their child. The parent did not authorize Google to present the child with options. The parent's role has been reduced to receiving a heads-up about a conversation that already happened.
This is not collaboration. This is a handoff. And the parent did not agree to it. If Google wants to support families and respect parental authority, the process should look different. When a child approaches thirteen, Google should email the parent. The email should explain that the child is nearing an age where some families choose to reduce or end parental supervision of digital accounts. The email should ask the parent whether they would like to continue supervision, adjust settings, or discuss options with their child.
The parent should be the one who decides. Not because parents are perfect. Not because every parent makes the right call. But because parents are the ones legally and morally responsible for their children's well-being. That responsibility does not end because a tech company has decided it is inconvenient.
If a family decides together that a child is ready for more independence, that is their choice to make. But the conversation should happen within the family, not because Google initiated it with the child directly.
The current system treats parents as obstacles to be worked around rather than decision-makers to be respected. That is a problem. Social media platforms set age requirements and then create verification processes that children can easily bypass. Streaming services create kids' profiles but allow children to switch to adult accounts with minimal friction. App stores rate content for age-appropriateness but do not enforce those ratings in any meaningful way. And now, Google is telling children they can remove the oversight their parents put in place.
When a child is harmed online, we ask where the parents were. When a child develops unhealthy technological habits, we ask why the parents were not paying attention. When a child is exposed to inappropriate content, we ask why the parents did not monitor more closely. But at the same time, companies are designing systems that make parental oversight optional. That treats parental involvement as something to be tolerated rather than supported. That presents children with choices about whether adults should be allowed to supervise them.
You cannot have it both ways. Either parents have authority, and companies respect it, or parents do not have authority, and companies stop pretending they do. Right now, we are in a space where parents are blamed but not empowered. That is untenable.
If you are a parent with a child approaching thirteen, you need to know this email is coming. You need to talk to your child about it before Google does. Explain that decisions about digital independence are family decisions. Explain that you are still responsible for their safety and well-being, and that includes online. Explain that turning thirteen does not mean they are suddenly on their own.
You can also reach out to Google directly and make it clear that their current approach is not acceptable. Companies listen when enough people speak up. They listen when parents make it clear that bypassing family authority is not okay.
This is a significant concern; it centers on who holds the authority to shape a child’s upbringing. At the moment, Google appears to be positioning itself as the decision-maker in this area, which is unacceptable.
0 comments