Assistive Technology, Parental Controls and ALN: Why Online Safety Advice Does Not Always Fit Disabled Children

This is the second article in our online safety mini-series for ALN families. It follows Online Safety, ALN and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act: Why Wales Needs Smarter Safeguarding.

A lot of online safety advice assumes a simple model.

A child has a device.

A parent applies parental controls.

Risk reduces.

For some families, that model may work well enough.

For many families raising disabled, neurodivergent or chronically unwell children, it is not that simple.

For some ALN children and young people, technology is not just entertainment. It may be their communication system, school access, regulation tool, social lifeline, learning support, independence aid, or bridge into EOTAS, home education, tutoring, college or work.

That means online safety cannot be reduced to “just lock it down”.

Sometimes locking down the device also locks down the child’s access.

The key message is simple:

For some ALN children, the same technology that creates risk is also the technology that makes communication, education and inclusion possible.

This is not about giving children unlimited access

Online harms are real.

Children can be exposed to grooming, coercion, scams, bullying, harmful content, sexual pressure, image-based abuse, risky challenges, exploitative communities, harmful algorithms and unsafe private messaging.

Parents are right to be concerned.

Professionals are right to take online safety seriously.

The Online Safety Act 2023 places new duties on online services and platforms. GOV.UK explains that the Act requires services to reduce risks that their platforms are used for illegal activity, take down illegal content, prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content, and provide clear ways to report problems online [1]. Ofcom’s child safety work also requires in-scope services likely to be accessed by children to assess risks and take safety measures to protect children from harmful content [2].

So this is not an argument for doing nothing.

It is an argument for doing safeguarding properly.

ALN families need safety approaches that protect children without accidentally removing the tools they need to communicate, learn, regulate or participate.

Fears about safeguarding should not be used to deny ALN children and young people the vital tools they need to access learning. The right response is not to remove access by default. The right response is to understand the child, the tool, the risk, the setting and the support needed.

What counts as assistive technology?

Assistive technology is a broad term. It can include specialist equipment, but it can also include ordinary devices and software used in a disability-specific way.

For an ALN child or young person, assistive technology might include:

• AAC, or augmentative and alternative communication;
• speech-to-text;
• text-to-speech;
• screen readers;
• captions;
• visual schedules;
• timers and reminder apps;
• communication apps;
• adapted keyboards or switches;
• spelling and writing support;
• reading support;
• dictation tools;
• translation tools;
• sensory regulation apps;
• online tutoring platforms;
• video calls with tutors, therapists or trusted adults;
• online school or EOTAS platforms;
• AI tools used for planning, writing, reading or executive function support.

Some of these tools may be specialist disability aids.

Others may be ordinary phones, tablets, laptops, headphones, apps or browser tools.

The key point is not whether the tool looks specialist.

The key point is what it enables the child to do.

If the device gives the child a voice, access to learning, a way to manage anxiety, or a route into education, it cannot be treated as if it is only a toy.

Why standard parental controls may not fit

Mainstream parental controls can be useful. They may help with age restrictions, app limits, screen-time routines, adult-content filtering, purchasing restrictions, location settings, app downloads, contacts or reporting.

But for ALN families, there can be problems.

A control may block the exact app the child uses to communicate.

A filter may interfere with learning resources.

A school or tutoring platform may require access that is hard to restrict neatly.

A child may need YouTube for a special-interest learning route, but also be vulnerable to recommendations.

A child may use messaging to communicate because speech is difficult, but private messaging may also increase risk.

A young person may need voice dictation or AI drafting support, but those tools may raise privacy and supervision questions.

A child may need flexibility because anxiety, burnout, fatigue or sensory distress make rigid timetables unrealistic.

A safety setting that blocks contact from strangers may be helpful.

A safety setting that blocks AAC, captions, dictation, screen-reader access or online tutoring may create a new access problem.

The ICO Children’s Code applies to online services likely to be accessed by under-18s and expects services to consider children’s best interests, use high privacy by default, avoid nudging children to provide unnecessary personal data, and consider age-appropriate design [3].

That matters because families should not be left with the whole burden.

Services, platforms and providers should be designing safer systems.

But even good design will not remove every family-level complexity.

When the device is the child’s voice

For some children, technology is communication.

An AAC device, communication app, text-based communication system, symbol-based tool, speech-generating device or typing route may be how the child tells adults:

• I am in pain;
• I am scared;
• I need help;
• I want to stop;
• I do not understand;
• I need the toilet;
• I am hungry;
• I feel unsafe;
• I want to talk to my friend;
• I need a break.

If adults remove or over-restrict that access, the child may lose more than screen time.

They may lose agency.

They may lose participation.

They may lose their route to disclose distress or risk.

That does not mean communication tools should have no safeguards. It means safeguarding must be planned around the child’s communication needs.

For example, adults may need to ask:

• Is this device used for communication?
• Which apps or functions are essential?
• Which parts can be restricted safely?
• Who can contact the child?
• Who checks messages or communication logs, if appropriate and proportionate?
• Does the child understand who is safe to contact?
• Is there a backup communication route if the device is removed or unavailable?
• Does the child have a way to report something privately and safely?

The online safety question is not only:

How do we reduce access?

It is also:

How do we keep communication open while reducing risk?

When technology is the classroom

For some children, digital access is part of education.

This may include:

• online tutoring;
• virtual school;
• EOTAS provision;
• home education resources;
• exam preparation;
• therapy or mentoring sessions;
• college transition;
• work-related learning;
• coding, gaming, design or creative skills;
• low-demand learning during recovery from burnout;
• access to specialist teaching not available locally.

Welsh Government describes EOTAS as education arranged by local authorities for learners who are unable to attend school, and says EOTAS can include online schooling and tuition [4]. Its EOTAS guidance also says local authority panels need to be assured that settings are suitable to meet the learner’s educational, wellbeing and safeguarding needs [4].

That means online provision should not be treated as automatically safe just because it is educational.

Parents may need to ask:

• Who provides the platform?
• Who supervises the sessions?
• Are sessions one-to-one or group-based?
• Are chats monitored?
• Can learners privately message tutors or other learners?
• Are sessions recorded?
• Who can access recordings?
• What happens if the child becomes distressed?
• Is the platform accessible for the child’s communication, sensory, cognitive or physical needs?
• What safeguarding policy applies?
• Who is responsible if something goes wrong?

For children with an IDP, parents may also need to ask whether digital access, assistive technology or online safety should be discussed in an IDP review.

Welsh ALN law matters here because a child’s support should not be planned as if technology is separate from education. Welsh Government guidance explains that ALN may include a disability that prevents or hinders a learner from accessing education or training facilities generally available to others of the same age [5].

When technology is regulation

Some children use technology to regulate.

This might include music, predictable videos, calming apps, visual timers, low-demand games, special-interest content, familiar voices, typing instead of speaking, or safe online routines.

Parents often know that the issue is not “screen addiction” in a simple sense.

The child may be using technology to recover from sensory overload, reduce anxiety, manage transitions, decompress after school, stay connected during burnout, or cope with an environment that has become too much.

That does not mean unlimited access is always safe or helpful.

But it does mean the support plan needs to understand what the child is using the technology for.

If a child is using a tablet to avoid distress, adults need to ask what distress is being avoided.

If a teenager is online all night, adults need to ask about sleep, anxiety, social isolation, school breakdown, unsafe contact, gaming pressure, compulsive use, and whether the young person has any offline route to belonging.

If a child becomes aggressive when a device is removed, adults need to ask whether the removal also removed communication, predictability, regulation or the only manageable activity.

Again, this is not about excusing unsafe situations.

It is about understanding the function of the technology before designing the safeguard.

Technical confidence can hide vulnerability

Some ALN children are highly confident with technology.

They may be brilliant at gaming, coding, editing, troubleshooting, searching, creating, building worlds, finding workarounds, or using AI tools.

Adults may assume that a technically capable child is also safe.

That assumption can be dangerous.

A child can know how to operate a platform without understanding:

• manipulation;
• coercion;
• grooming;
• fake friendship;
• blackmail;
• financial scams;
• reputational risk;
• consent;
• screenshots;
• permanence;
• pressure to share images;
• unsafe groups;
• when to ask for help.

This is especially important for children and young people who are autistic, have ADHD, learning disability, anxiety, trauma histories, communication differences, social vulnerability, low danger awareness, high trust, impulsivity, or strong need for belonging.

The online safety question should not be:

Can this child use the technology?

It should be:

Can this child understand and manage the social risks around the technology?

Those are different questions.

Why “just supervise” is not enough

Parents are often told to supervise more.

Sometimes supervision is necessary.

But supervision alone is not a system.

Families need tools, settings, accessible platforms, clear responsibilities and support that reflects the child’s actual needs.

Some parents are caring for more than one disabled child.

Some are sleep-deprived.

Some are single parents.

Some are disabled themselves.

Some are working.

Some are dealing with school breakdown, attendance pressure, EOTAS meetings, IDP reviews, benefits forms, health appointments, social care referrals, sibling needs and financial stress.

Some children need technology across many hours because education, communication and regulation all sit on the same device.

Some teenagers need privacy and independence, but still need protection.

Some young people are legally old enough to have more say, while still being socially vulnerable.

Research on family online safety and privacy has also found that collaborative oversight can be useful but difficult in practice, partly because of power imbalances, different expectations and parents not always having the technical expertise to monitor effectively [6].

So “just supervise” is not enough.

Families need practical, realistic, disability-aware support.

Where families can get help choosing accessible technology

Parents should not be expected to work all of this out alone.

Choosing assistive technology can be complicated. A tool may look useful but be too hard to configure, too expensive, too intrusive, inaccessible in practice, poorly matched to the child’s needs, or difficult to combine with parental controls.

It is also worth remembering that a specialist product is not always the first or only answer. Ordinary phones, tablets, laptops and operating systems often include built-in accessibility tools such as dictation, captions, screen readers, reading support, display adjustments, focus modes, magnification, reminders, speech output and keyboard adaptations. For some children, these built-in tools may be enough, or may be a useful starting point before families spend money on specialist products.

AbilityNet is a useful UK charity for families to know about. It provides free technology support for older and disabled people anywhere in the UK, including support from technology volunteers. It also offers free factsheets, webinars and “My Computer My Way” guides to help people make devices easier to use [7].

For ALN families, organisations like AbilityNet can be useful because the question is often not simply “which app is best?”

It may be:

• which tool supports this child’s communication, reading, writing, access or independence?
• can the child actually use it when tired, anxious or dysregulated?
• does it work with the devices the family already has?
• can privacy and safety settings be configured sensibly?
• does it create new contact, data or online risk?
• is there a lower-cost or built-in accessibility option before buying something specialist?
• will it still work if parental controls are applied?

Families may still need advice from school, the local authority, an occupational therapist, speech and language therapist, assistive technology specialist, tutor, EOTAS provider or another relevant professional. But knowing where to find independent technology guidance can help parents ask better questions.

What parents can ask schools, tutors, EOTAS providers and local authorities

Where technology is part of education, parents can ask for clarity in writing.

Useful questions include:

• What technology, platforms or apps are required for my child’s education?
• Which parts are essential for learning or communication?
• Which parts can be restricted safely?
• What parental controls are available?
• Do those controls work with my child’s assistive technology?
• Is the platform accessible for my child’s ALN, communication, sensory or physical needs?
• Can my child privately message adults or other learners?
• Are chats monitored or recorded?
• Are video sessions recorded?
• Who can access messages, recordings or submitted work?
• What safeguarding policy applies?
• What happens if my child becomes distressed, dysregulated or unsafe online?
• Who is responsible for online safety during EOTAS or online tutoring?
• Should assistive technology or online safety be included in the IDP review?
• What reasonable adjustments are needed so safety measures do not block access?

These are not hostile questions.

They are sensible questions.

They help stop everyone assuming that “online provision” is automatically accessible, safe or suitable.

What parents can ask about assistive technology

If a child uses assistive technology, parents may also want to ask:

• Is this tool essential for communication, education, regulation or independence?
• Does it require internet access?
• Does it store personal data?
• Does it use cloud services?
• Does it include AI features?
• Can strangers contact the child through it?
• Can the child contact strangers through it?
• Can the child share images, voice recordings or location?
• Are there age settings?
• Are there privacy settings?
• Are there reporting tools?
• Can settings be changed without the parent knowing?
• Is there a child-friendly way to report concern?
• Does the child understand what information not to share?
• Is there a plan for reviewing the settings regularly?

This is not about making parents responsible for everything.

It is about giving families better questions so they are not left guessing.

What “smarter safeguarding” might look like

For ALN children, smarter safeguarding may include:

• keeping essential communication access open;
• using privacy settings that do not block access;
• separating education access from entertainment access where possible;
• agreeing safer contact lists;
• turning off unnecessary location sharing;
• checking whether AI features are enabled;
• using child-friendly explanations about screenshots, secrecy, pressure and consent;
• making reporting routes visible and accessible;
• agreeing what the child should do if someone asks for images, money or secrecy;
• building trusted adult check-ins into online learning;
• making online safety part of IDP, EOTAS or transition planning where relevant;
• checking whether restrictions are increasing distress, isolation or unsafe workaround behaviour;
• reviewing settings regularly as the child grows.

The answer is not always more restriction.

The answer is better design, better communication and better matching of safeguards to the child.

Why peer support can be so useful

This is where parent peer support can be very practical.

Families often learn a great deal from other parents whose children have similar needs, use similar tools, or have tried similar settings.

Peer support can help parents ask:

• what has worked for a similar child?
• what did not work?
• which tools were too complicated?
• which settings were helpful?
• which platforms felt safer?
• what did the school, tutor or EOTAS provider agree to?
• did the parental controls block something essential?
• did the child actually use the tool when tired, anxious or dysregulated?
• what questions should I ask before paying for a tool?
• where did other families find technical or professional help?

This does not replace professional advice.

It does not replace safeguarding routes.

It does not mean copying another family’s solution without thinking.

But it can reduce isolation and help parents avoid starting from scratch.

Technology changes quickly. The pace of change often moves faster than training providers can produce formal topical courses. AI tools, platform settings, accessibility features, messaging risks, gaming spaces and school software can all change before parents or professionals have had structured training on them.

That is why LWL believes in improved and ongoing educational opportunities for both parents and professionals.

We also believe in open, transparent and honest discussion.

Families should be able to say:

• this tool helps my child;
• this tool worries me;
• I do not understand this setting;
• my child needs this access;
• I am not sure whether this is safe;
• I need to know what other families have tried;
• I need help asking better questions.

That kind of discussion is not a weakness.

It is part of safer practice.

Where LWL’s parent community can help

LWL’s online parent community cannot replace specialist safeguarding advice, police, social care, health, legal advice, school safeguarding routes or technical support.

But parent peer knowledge can be valuable.

Parents often know which tools actually work, which settings are confusing, which platforms have caused problems, which tutoring routes feel safer, which online groups are supportive, and which local or national services may be worth contacting.

That matters because ALN families are often trying to make decisions in a fast-changing digital landscape while also dealing with school, health, social care and family pressures.

The community is not there to tell parents to ignore concerns.

It is there to help parents ask better questions and find safer routes, faster.

LWL’s wider approach is prevention, bridging and progression. Online safety sits within that. It is part of helping families understand risk early, bridge difficult situations when education or access has become complicated, and support young people towards safer, more confident independence over time.

We have also written about when online engagement becomes emotional dependency, because emotional pull, attachment, algorithms and vulnerability can all matter when children are spending more time online [9].

This article also follows our broader piece on online safety, ALN and smarter safeguarding [8].

The key message

Online safety advice often assumes technology is optional.

For many ALN children, it is not.

It may be communication.

It may be education.

It may be regulation.

It may be connection.

It may be independence.

That does not remove risk.

It changes how risk must be managed.

Safeguarding concerns should never be dismissed.

But safeguarding should not be used as a blunt reason to deny ALN children and young people the tools they need to access learning, communication and inclusion.

For ALN families, the right question is not:

How do we lock everything down?

The better question is:

How do we protect this child while preserving communication, education, inclusion and dignity?

That is the safeguarding conversation Wales needs.

Legal disclaimer

This article is for general information only. It is not legal advice, safeguarding advice, clinical advice or technical advice.

Families facing immediate online risk, grooming, exploitation, threats, image-based abuse, self-harm risk, criminal behaviour or safeguarding concerns should seek urgent support from the appropriate emergency, safeguarding, policing, school, local authority, health or specialist advice route.

References

[1] GOV.UK, “Online Safety Act: explainer,” updated 24 Apr. 2025. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer

[2] Ofcom, “Protecting children from harms online,” accessed May 2026. Available: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/protecting-children-from-harms-online/

[3] Information Commissioner’s Office, “Introduction to the Children’s code,” accessed May 2026. Available: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/childrens-information/childrens-code-guidance-and-resources/introduction-to-the-childrens-code/

[4] Welsh Government, “Additional learning needs (ALN) and education otherwise than at school (EOTAS),” 27 Mar. 2026. Available: https://www.gov.wales/additional-learning-needs-aln-and-education-otherwise-school-eotas-html

[5] Welsh Government, “Additional learning needs (ALN): decision-making and communication,” 27 Mar. 2026. Available: https://www.gov.wales/additional-learning-needs-aln-decision-making-and-communication-html

[6] M. Akter, A. Godfrey, J. Kropczynski, H. R. Lipford, and P. Wisniewski, “From Parental Control to Joint Family Oversight: Can Parents and Teens Manage Mobile Online Safety and Privacy as Equals?,” arXiv, 2022. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07749

[7] AbilityNet, “A digital world accessible to all,” accessed May 2026. Available: https://abilitynet.org.uk/

[8] Learn Without Limits CIC, “Online Safety, ALN and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act: Why Wales Needs Smarter Safeguarding,” May 2026. Available: https://blog.learnwithoutlimitscic.org/online-safety-aln-childrens-wellbeing-schools-act-wales/

[9] Learn Without Limits CIC, “When ‘Engagement’ Becomes Emotional Dependency: Why ALN Children Are Disproportionately Exposed,” Feb. 2026. Available: https://blog.learnwithoutlimitscic.org/2026/02/when-engagement-becomes-emotional.html