What Happens When a Parent Gives Permission but the Child Says No?

Can a parent authorize research participation when the child says no?

A parent has reviewed your study information and signed the permission form. Everything seems ready until the child says, “I don't want to do it.”

Does the parent's authorization settle the matter?

Usually not when the child is capable of assent and the IRB requires assent for the research. Under the U.S. HHS framework, OHRP states that when required assent is not obtained because the child dissents, the child cannot participate even though the parent or guardian has granted permission. There are, however, specific circumstances in which assent may not be a necessary condition or may be waived.

When assent is required, the child's no ordinarily stops enrollment

Parental permission does not automatically override child dissent

The parent's permission and the child's assent are separate

A parent or guardian may have authority to permit a child's research participation, but that does not automatically mean a capable child's own decision is irrelevant. When assent is required, both parts of the enrollment process must be satisfied.

OHRP addresses this disagreement directly: if a child is capable of assent and the IRB requires assent, assent must be obtained before participation. If the child dissents, the child's decision prevails despite parental permission, subject to the regulatory circumstances in which assent is not necessary or may be waived.

This reflects the broader distinction between parental permission, child assent, and legally effective consent. A parent's signature satisfies one requirement. It does not manufacture the child's affirmative agreement.

A clear refusal is not assent

Under HHS regulations, assent means affirmative agreement. Mere failure to object does not count as assent. A direct statement such as “I don't want to participate” is therefore not something a researcher should reinterpret as agreement because the parent has already signed.

Researchers should also avoid repeatedly asking the same question in ways that communicate that “yes” is the expected answer. The purpose of assent is undermined if refusal simply triggers further persuasion until the child yields.

The IRB determines whether assent is required

Not every child in every study is required to assent. Under 45 CFR 46.408(a), the IRB determines whether adequate provisions must be made to solicit assent from children capable of providing it. In making that judgment, the IRB considers age, maturity, and psychological state.

This is why researchers should not make an ad hoc decision after a child refuses. The protocol and IRB determination should already establish which participants are expected to assent and whether any exception or waiver applies.

Some children may be unable to provide meaningful assent

HHS regulations allow the IRB to determine that assent is not a necessary condition when the capability of some or all children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted.

This does not mean researchers should ignore such children's behavior. A child who cannot provide formal assent may still communicate distress or unwillingness in meaningful ways. The ethical and practical problem of a child who appears unwilling without explicitly saying no therefore deserves separate consideration.

There is an important direct-benefit exception

HHS regulations provide another circumstance in which assent is not a necessary condition: the IRB may determine that the intervention or procedure involved in the research offers a prospect of direct benefit important to the child's health or well-being and is available only in the context of the research. FDA regulations contain a closely corresponding provision for covered clinical investigations.

This is a narrow and consequential exception. It does not mean that parental permission always overrides refusal whenever researchers believe a study might help. The IRB must make the relevant determination, and the regulatory criteria concern an important prospect of direct benefit available only through the research.

Assent may also be waived under specified conditions

Even when children are capable of assenting, HHS regulations permit the IRB to waive the assent requirement under circumstances in which consent may be waived in accordance with the applicable provisions of 45 CFR 46.116. FDA regulations provide a waiver pathway for covered clinical investigations when specified criteria are met.

A research team should therefore know whether an assent waiver exists before recruitment begins. A child's refusal is not itself grounds for inventing a waiver after the fact.

Even an exception does not make a child's distress ethically meaningless

A regulatory determination that assent is not a necessary condition answers an important question about whether participation may legally and procedurally proceed without assent. It does not mean researchers should become indifferent to a child's experience.

This can be particularly important in therapeutic research involving an intervention available only through the study. The regulatory framework may permit participation without assent in the circumstances described above, yet investigators, parents, clinicians, and IRBs may still need to consider the child's reasons for refusing, the burdens involved, and whether distress can be reduced.

SACHRP has similarly noted that there may be circumstances in which a child's refusal should be respected even when the regulations do not require assent because the research offers a prospect of direct benefit.

Withdrawal after enrollment also deserves attention

A child may initially assent and later decide they no longer want to participate. Researchers should not assume that the original assent permanently settles the matter.

The protocol should specify how ongoing willingness will be handled, particularly in longitudinal or repeated-procedure research. The implications may depend on whether assent remains required, what activities remain, whether an applicable exception exists, and what the IRB has approved.

Parental permission does not turn a child's no into yes

The researcher should not tell the child, “Your parent already signed, so you have to do it.” That statement would misrepresent the role of assent in this protocol.

This situation is also different from one in which the child wants to participate but the parent refuses permission. In that case, required parental authorization is missing. Here, parental authorization exists but required child assent does not.

Common mistakes when a child refuses after parental permission

Decide how refusal will be handled before a child ever says no

Your protocol should state what researchers will do when parental permission has been obtained but the child refuses. Staff should understand which participants are required to assent, what constitutes assent, and whether any approved exception or waiver applies.

Researchers should also distinguish a clear verbal refusal from less explicit behavior. A child may freeze, pull away, cry, avoid the researcher, or repeatedly fail to cooperate without saying “no.” Those situations raise the related question of how to respond to nonverbal dissent.

Where the child clearly refuses and assent is required, however, the basic operational response is straightforward: parental permission does not fill the missing assent requirement.

When a child says no after the parent says yes, check the assent requirement

Frequently asked questions when a child refuses research

A parent's yes does not automatically erase the child's no

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.