When Can Parental Permission Be Waived in Research With Minors?

Can researchers ever enroll minors without asking their parents?

Parental or guardian permission is a familiar protection in research involving children. But what happens when obtaining it is impracticable, when requiring it may expose a child to harm, or when the parent is not a reasonable person to rely on for protection in the circumstances being studied?

U.S. HHS regulations do allow an institutional review board (IRB) to waive parental or guardian permission in specified circumstances. The important word is specified. Researchers cannot omit permission merely because recruitment would be easier, response rates would improve, or adolescents would prefer privacy.

There is also more than one regulatory pathway. Some waivers rely on the general Common Rule provisions for waiving informed consent. Another provision, 45 CFR 46.408(c), specifically addresses research involving children for whom parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable protective requirement.

An IRB may waive parental permission, but only when the applicable criteria are satisfied

There is no single parental-permission waiver rule

First determine whether parental permission is required at all

Before requesting a waiver, determine whether the participants are legally considered children for the treatments or procedures involved in the research. Under HHS regulations, “children” are persons who have not reached the legal age for consent to those treatments or procedures under the applicable law where the research is conducted.

This matters because some minors may legally consent to particular health services or procedures. OHRP explains that if research involves solely treatments or procedures for which those minors may legally consent outside the research context, they may not meet the regulatory definition of children for that research. In such circumstances, the issue may be the minor's own informed consent rather than a waiver of parental permission.

Do not use a waiver to solve a problem that is actually a question about who has legal authority to consent.

One pathway is the general Common Rule waiver

Under the 2018 Common Rule, 45 CFR 46.116(f) permits an IRB to waive informed consent when it finds and documents the required conditions. Because 45 CFR 46.408 links parental permission to the consent requirements of 46.116, this pathway can also support waiver of parental permission in appropriate research involving children.

These are cumulative requirements. Showing that a study is minimal risk does not by itself establish that parental permission may be waived.

“Impracticable” does not simply mean inconvenient

The general waiver pathway requires the IRB to determine that the research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver. Researchers should therefore explain the actual methodological or operational consequences of requiring parental permission rather than simply stating that permission would be difficult to obtain.

A larger workload, slower recruitment, or a preference for a simpler procedure is not automatically enough. The IRB needs a defensible basis for concluding that requiring permission would make the research impracticable under the applicable waiver provision.

Researchers should also distinguish impracticability from impossibility. The regulation uses the former term. The IRB evaluates the circumstances of the proposed research and documents its determination.

The child-specific pathway asks a different question

Section 46.408(c) provides an additional waiver authority specifically for research involving children. If the IRB determines that the protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects, it may waive parental permission if two further conditions are met: an appropriate mechanism must be substituted to protect the children, and the waiver must not be inconsistent with federal, state, or local law.

The regulation gives neglected or abused children as an example. This is illustrative rather than an exhaustive list of every possible population for which parental permission might be an unreasonable protective mechanism.

The special child-protection waiver is not restricted to minimal-risk research

This distinction is easy to miss. OHRP specifically explains that an IRB may waive parental or guardian permission under 45 CFR 46.408(c) even when the research involves more than minimal risk to the child subjects.

That does not make the pathway permissive. The IRB must still determine that parental permission is not a reasonable requirement for protecting the subjects, require an appropriate substitute mechanism, and ensure that the waiver is legally permissible. Other requirements governing the research with children also continue to apply.

Something may need to replace the protection ordinarily provided by the parent

Section 46.408(c) does not simply remove parental permission and leave a vacuum. It requires an appropriate mechanism for protecting the children.

OHRP gives a child advocate or an assent monitor as possible examples. The appropriate mechanism depends on the nature and purpose of the research, its risks and anticipated benefits, and the children's age, maturity, status, and condition.

A substitute protection should therefore be designed around the actual vulnerability created when parental involvement is removed. A generic statement that “the research team will protect participants” is unlikely to explain how the missing protection is being replaced.

A waiver of parental permission is not automatically a waiver of child assent

These are separate requirements. Removing the requirement for parental permission does not automatically remove the capable child's role in deciding whether to participate.

If the IRB requires child assent, researchers still need to obtain that assent unless the assent requirement is separately determined unnecessary or appropriately waived. Understanding how assent and parental permission operate together is particularly important when requesting a waiver of only one of them.

Waiving permission is different from waiving its documentation

Another distinction matters. An IRB may sometimes waive the requirement for a signed parental-permission document while still requiring researchers to obtain parental permission.

That is a waiver of documentation, not a waiver of permission itself. Researchers should state clearly which one they are requesting.

An opt-out notice is not automatically parental permission

Researchers sometimes send parents information and state that the child will participate unless the parent returns a form declining participation. OHRP has explained that this type of “passive consent” or opt-out procedure is not consistent with the regulatory requirement to seek and obtain parental permission when permission itself remains required.

An opt-out mechanism therefore should not be used as a semantic workaround. If the IRB appropriately waives parental permission, a notification or opt-out procedure might potentially serve another ethical or practical purpose if approved, but it is not the same thing as obtaining affirmative parental permission.

Federal permission to waive does not override other law

A waiver analysis cannot stop with 45 CFR part 46. Section 46.408(c) expressly requires that the waiver not be inconsistent with federal, state, or local law.

Researchers working across jurisdictions should therefore verify applicable law at each site. Institutional policy, sponsor requirements, other federal regulations, and the nature of the research may impose additional constraints.

A waiver request needs more than a recruitment argument

The same topic could lead to a different decision in another protocol. A study involving more than minimal risk, different procedures, or a different jurisdiction may not qualify through the general waiver pathway. If parental involvement itself is an unreasonable protection for the population, the analysis may instead turn to 45 CFR 46.408(c).

Common mistakes when requesting a parental-permission waiver

Build the waiver request around the applicable regulatory pathway

A persuasive waiver request begins by identifying exactly why parental permission would ordinarily be required and exactly which authority would allow the IRB to waive it. Avoid a generic paragraph stating that permission is “impractical.”

For research involving particularly sensitive adolescent populations, the analysis should go further than regulatory eligibility. Researchers should explain why requiring parental permission could itself create risk or systematically undermine the research, what protections will replace parental involvement, and how adolescent decision-making will be supported.

Before requesting a parental-permission waiver, build the case

Frequently asked questions about waiving parental permission

A waiver removes a requirement only after another protection has justified doing so

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.