By: Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos.
Published on March 17, 2026, at approximately 5:21 am.
A Conversation With Generative AI: Children, Design, and the Hidden Risks Behind the Screen
This morning’s chat with generative AI returned to a familiar legal principle—the best interest of the child—but reframed it in a way that feels increasingly urgent: what responsibility do we assign to the systems shaping a child’s digital life?
In California, custody decisions are guided by California Family Code Section 3011, requiring courts to evaluate a child’s health, safety, and welfare. Traditionally, that meant looking at the home, the school, and the conduct of parents.
Many of you might be aware that I discuss more subtle harms. That’s because people are increasingly becoming more skillful at predatory behavior. In today’s digital world, these types of harms may be much more prevalent than you might think. Today, it means that we must look at something far less visible:
The design of the digital environments children inhabit.
When Design Becomes the Environment
Children are no longer just consuming content—they are navigating engineered ecosystems.
Gaming platforms, interactive storytelling apps, and algorithm-driven feeds are designed to:
-Keep users engaged.
-Encourage repeat interaction.
-Personalize content in real time.
This is where the concept of privacy by design begins to matter.
At its simplest, privacy by design means that safety and privacy are built into a product from the outset—not added later. Increasingly, regulators are expanding that idea into something broader:
Safety by design—systems that anticipate risks to children before harm occurs.
The Tension Beneath the Surface
These concepts are gaining traction in law and policy. Yesterday, I discussed developments with the new Kids Code and California’s Age Appropriate Design Code. But concepts such as embedding privacy and safety into design principles for engineers exist alongside a more difficult reality.
Digital platforms are not always neutral. They can also create conditions where predatory behavior is easier to conceal.
The risk is not always obvious. It often appears indirectly:
-Anonymous accounts.
-Interacting with minors.
-Messaging features embedded within entertainment platforms.
-Emotionally driven content that lowers a child’s guard.
-Algorithmic recommendations that gradually shift what a child sees.
A child may begin in a seemingly harmless space, only to be drawn into environments that are more suggestive, more personal, and more difficult to supervise.
Why This Matters for Parents
For parents, the challenge is no longer just what the child is watching or playing.
It is:
-Who else may be present in that space?
–How the platform guides interaction.
–Whether the system itself increases exposure to risk.
Even attentive parenting can be undermined by:
-Hidden communication channels.
-Rapid content escalation.
-Design features that encourage prolonged and private engagement.
This creates a gap between what parents believe is happening—and what may actually be occurring.
A Legal Standard Meeting a Digital Reality
Under Family Code §3011, courts are still asking the same questions:
Is the child safe?
Is the child’s well-being protected?
Is the parent exercising sound judgment?
But those questions now extend into environments shaped by code, algorithms, and design choices.
This is where privacy by design and safety by design become more than regulatory language. They represent an emerging expectation:
That the systems children use should not expose them to foreseeable harm.
Where the Law Is Heading
We are beginning to see a shift—from focusing solely on parental responsibility to examining platform responsibility.
The idea is straightforward:
If a product is likely to be used by children, it should be designed with their vulnerabilities in mind.
Yet the presence of predatory behavior in digital environments complicates this effort. It highlights a difficult truth:
Even well-designed systems must contend with actors who exploit access, anonymity, and trust.
Closing Reflection
This morning’s conversation led to a simple but important realization.
The best interest of the child has always required adults to look beyond the surface—to ask not just what is visible, but what may be affecting a child beneath it. In this technology driven world, it’s the hidden dangers that is causing everyone become increasingly concerned about the liability associated with giving a child these products. Even far more nefarious for parents especially are the hidden dangers associated with many of today’s technologies.
In today’s world, that inquiry must include the systems children interact with every day.
Because protecting children now requires more than supervision.
It requires understanding how digital environments are built—and who may be operating within them. For this parent, it required something far more extreme—it’s called Perspectives.
Sources
California Family Code § 3011
California Age-Appropriate Design Code
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Articles 25 (Privacy by Design)
UK Information Commissioner’s Office, Age Appropriate Design Code
American Academy of Pediatrics, Media Use in School-Aged Children and Adolescents Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media and Technology.
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), online safety resources.
U.S. Department of Justice, resources on online child exploitation.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are those of the author and are intended to contribute to discussion regarding family law, privacy, and emerging technology-related risks affecting children. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding specific legal questions or circumstances.