A responsibility beyond a signature: Why should we obtain consent forms when working with children?

For civil society organizations working with children, creating a safe, rights-based, and ethical work environment is one of the fundamental responsibilities. This responsibility involves not only determining the content of activities but also covering how children’s participation processes are conducted and how their rights are protected.

During this oversight, there is a question we frequently hear in the field: “We got a consent form from the parent for the child's participation, is this enough?”

In fact, the answer to this question isn’t found in the signature on the paper, but in the ethical stance that the signature represents. Because consent is not only a legal safeguard, but also the clearest indicator of a child’s right to participate.

Consent: Just permission, or a contract of trust?

We all hear about the concept of “consent” in various fields: in health services, data protection processes, and sometimes even in daily matters.

According to the Turkish Language Association, consent means “approval”; in other words, finding something appropriate or granting permission.

In legal contexts, consent means that before any action is taken concerning a person, that individual must knowingly and freely approve the action.

However, in the context of children’s rights, consent means that the child can knowingly, freely, and in an informed manner say “yes” or “no” to a process.

What does rights-based approach mean in the consent process?

The consent process is not just about “getting permission” but also about building a trust relationship with the child, respecting their decisions, and actively including them in all processes. 

A child’s right to say “no” is more important than how easily we get a “yes”.

For organizations, this process is a learning space that strengthens communication, supports trust-based relationships, and embodies ethical standards.

Beyond the signature: Personality rights and privacy

Taking a child’s photo, sharing it, or collecting personal information also carries the potential of infringing upon their personality rights. Every child is protected by the personality rights they possess from birth. These rights cover all personal values ranging from the child's name to their voice, visual representation, and their physical and mental integrity.

Legal basis: The Turkish Civil Code and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially the principle of the best interests of the child (Article 3) and the protection obligations of the state and society (Article 4), mandate that these rights be observed not just by the state but by all actors who come into contact with children.

Privacy: Respecting a child's private life also means respecting their identity, boundaries, and their status as a subject. For children, privacy is not just about a “private space”. It is also one of the basic conditions for autonomy, a sense of security, and healthy identity development.

Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child also expressly prohibits arbitrary interference in children’s private lives, family or correspondence/communication, and guarantees legal protection of the child's dignity.

Who has the right to decide over personality rights?

Legally, the parent or guardian has certain decision-making authority over the child’s rights. However, this authority is not unlimited. 

Although the child’s capacity to act is limited by age and ability to discern, the child is a legal subject and, in terms of possessing rights, is equal to adults. Therefore, the child has the right to express their opinion and participate in decisions in matters that concern their own personality, in a manner appropriate to their age and level of maturity. 

Seeking the child's consent is not a matter of the child's legal capacity to perform legal actions, but a matter of protecting personality rights and recognizing the child as a subject.

The situation at this point is clear:

Consent from the caregiver alone is not sufficient: The child should also be informed and give consent with their free will.

The caregiver’s objection is essential: Even if the child gives consent, if the caregiver objects, that action (ethically and legally) cannot be performed. The caregiver’s responsibility to protect the child is a part of the best interests of the child principle.

Mutual consent: A rights-based approach requires not a debate about which approval is sufficient, but seeking the consent of both the child and the caregiver in a harmonious manner. 

Just as actions cannot be taken without the child’s consent, it is also not possible to rely on the child’s consent when there is explicit objection from the caregiver. In either scenario, the main criterion is the protection of the child’s best interests and personality rights.

Why isn’t caregiver consent enough?

Relying solely on parental consent is an incomplete approach from the perspective of children’s rights. Because,

The child has the right to express their opinion on matters affecting their own life (UNCRC Art. 12).

The person whose photo, voice or expression is shared is not simply the “parent’s child”; they are an individual with their own identity, feelings, and privacy.

How is informed consent obtained?

It is not enough to simply ask the child, “Can we share your photo?” An explanation should be given, in an age-appropriate language, that answers questions of why and how. 

Sample statement: “In this activity, we want to showcase the work you children have done together. That’s why we may sometimes take your photographs and share them on our social media or in our reports. But if you don’t want your photo to be taken or shared, you just need to tell us. This decision will never affect your participation in the activity—we are always very happy you are here!”
This kind of explanation both lays the foundation for informed consent and ensures the child is seen as a subject.

The Right to Be Forgotten: Consent Is a Living Process

Consent is not a document that is obtained once and then shelved. A child may later withdraw permission that was previously given; they may ask for a photo to be deleted or for their name to be removed from a text. A rights-based approach requires that such requests are unconditionally met.

In conclusion;

Let’s remember that taking a child’s photo, sharing it, or collecting personal information are actions with the potential to directly interfere with their personality rights. Such intervention can only be considered legitimate when the principles of information, consent, and protection are jointly and simultaneously taken into account.

Here, the guiding principle is a rights-based approach requiring the establishment of a practice that concretely protects children’s personality rights through privacy. 

The consent form is not just a procedure but a mirror that reflects the rights-based reflex of the organization. Much more important than a form with a parent’s signature is a process where the child feels safe and has a voice. It is not the child’s photo or voice, but the protection of their rights that creates the real visibility of civil society.