The Hidden Stakeholders: Why Minors Deserve a Front Row Seat in Consent Strategy
- Laura Young
- Dec 8, 2025
- 5 min read
Kids and teens generate some of the most sensitive data in our health and social care ecosystems. They show up in behavioral health programs, crisis response, school linked services, pediatric care, foster settings, shelters, and community supports, often all in the same month. Yet when it comes to data sharing and consent governance, minors are rarely treated as full participants. They are more like the surprise guest that the system forgot to seat.
That approach is no longer workable. The stakes are too high, the regulations too complex, and the expectations of young people too different from previous generations. If we want whole person systems that function in the real world, minors have to be intentionally built into the consent framework.
Why Minors Matter More Than Ever
1. Youth behavioral health needs are climbing fast.
The CDC reports that one in five adolescents experiences a mental health condition each year. Emergency department visits for youth mental health needs have increased since 2019, and suspected suicide attempts among girls rose more than fifty percent during the early pandemic period. These are not fringe populations. They are central users of care.
Sources:
2. Minors move across more systems than adults.
A single youth might bounce between pediatricians, behavioral health professionals, school counselors, mobile crisis teams, shelters, and mentorship programs all in the same season. When consent workflows are designed for adults, coordination becomes a high stakes guessing game.
3. Laws treat minors differently depending on circumstance.
HIPAA allows minors to control certain types of information in specific clinical contexts. State laws vary widely on adolescent consent for behavioral health, reproductive care, and SUD treatment. Part 2 adds additional protections for minors in federally assisted SUD programs. And the moment a young person turns 18, the entire consent landscape shifts. A model that ignores this complexity will fall apart the moment it confronts real cases.
4. Younger generations expect agency.
Gen Z and Gen Alpha grew up tapping through privacy settings before they could drive. They expect transparency, clarity, and the ability to make choices. As national models like TEFCA and the ACCESS model normalize patient directed data exchange, minors will expect similar control.
The Gaps We See Today
Gap 1. Systems revolve around adults and push minors to the margins.
Most consent workflows in HIEs, CIEs, and EHRs default to the parent or guardian as the central decision maker. That default does not reflect many real-world scenarios where minors have their own rights to confidentiality or independent consent. It also creates operational risk when system rules and legal realities do not match.
Gap 2. No clear support for partial or mixed rights.
Minors often have the right to consent to some services but not others. Many systems lack the ability to segment data or permissions based on service type, age, or state specific rules. This is where consent gets messy and where thoughtful system design saves everyone a headache.
Gap 3. No transition workflow when a minor becomes an adult.
At age 18, parental access usually shifts or terminates. Yet very few systems automatically trigger a permission review. This can result in either accidental over sharing or abrupt lockouts, neither of which builds trust.
Gap 4. User materials are not accessible for youth.
Consent explanations are usually written for lawyers, not kids. Youth are absolutely capable of understanding their rights, but not if everything sounds like a contract written on a Monday before coffee.
Gap 5. Foster care transitions change who holds authority.
When a child enters foster care or experiences a placement change, the authority to make health or behavioral health decisions can shift quickly. Depending on state law, consent may sit with a biological parent, foster parent, caseworker, court, or a mix of them. Each placement change can render previous permissions outdated. Systems need a way to capture updated authorizations at each transition and prevent old permissions from lingering.
What a Modern Minor Inclusive Consent Strategy Should Look Like
1. A living map of state specific minor consent rules.
Each state defines which services minors can consent to, what confidentiality protections apply, and when parents or guardians hold decision making authority. This should not live in a binder. It should be a structured, maintained reference that informs workflows across all participating organizations.Good examples and summaries:
2. Support for layered and flexible consent.
Examples include:
Parental consent for general care
Minor self consent for behavioral health or SUD treatment where permitted
Joint consent scenarios
Emergency exceptions
Consent rules must be configurable and not require a developer every time a state legislature updates a statute.
3. An age based transition pathway.
At 18, systems should:
Notify the youth
Pause or update parental permissions
Provide an easy way to set new preferences
Maintain accessibility for the youth through plain language tools
This reduces the risk of privacy breaches and builds trust in the system.
4. Multiple entry points for capturing or updating consent.
Schools, shelters, crisis teams, pediatric practices, youth programs, and telehealth services all need lightweight ways to capture or refresh consent. Shoving everyone into a single adult oriented portal is not a strategy. It is a barrier.
5. Youth friendly materials.
Consent should be understandable without a legal dictionary. Visual aids, plain language, examples, and sixth grade reading level materials consistently outperform traditional forms.
6. Governance that prevents over sharing.
Segmentation, role based access, break the glass workflows, and audit trails are essential. Minors deserve protections that match the sensitivity of their data.
7. A clean, explainable audit trail.
Families, courts, and oversight bodies may ask who accessed information and under what authority. Clear logs reduce confusion and protect everyone involved.
A Few Realities Worth Naming
Parents do not always agree on consent decisions
Youth may value confidentiality even in situations adults find uncomfortable
Consent is not a single yes or no box
Providers already struggle with nuanced consent rules, so systems must carry more of that cognitive load
Perfection is unrealistic but directionality matters
Why This Matters for HIEs and CIEs
Interoperability is entering what can only be described as its teenage phase. Everything is growing fast, a little unpredictable, and somehow always hungry. As HIEs and CIEs expand deeper into behavioral health, crisis response, and social care, minors are a core population. Ignoring their needs is not a small oversight. It is a fundamental barrier to trust and adoption.
If your consent strategy cannot handle minors, it cannot handle whole person care.
Looking Ahead
Next generation consent will include digital identity for minors, more dynamic parent dependent access models, portable authorizations, and mobile friendly renewal pathways. Federal models like ACCESS will accelerate the need for better infrastructure, but the opportunity is already here. HIEs and CIEs are well positioned to lead by designing consent models that reflect the real lives of kids and families.
After all, the minors are not minor. They are future adults who will inherit the data ecosystem we are building today. Creating a consent strategy that works for them is not optional. It is the only way to create a trustworthy, sustainable, whole person data environment.
Comments