‘Relationship Expert’ Encourages Parents to Get Their Baby’s Approval Before Changing Nappy

If there is one thing about life we can be sure of, it’s that people will always have a powerful opinion. This truth has been amplified exponentially by the digital age, where anyone may easily express their opinions to the world and have them heard, regardless of how controversial or niche they may be. It is often a perverse irony that the stranger and more contentious the advice, the more attention it seems to garner.

One self-described relationship guru, Deanne Carson, found herself at the center of a viral firestorm thanks to her unique and highly debated advice for parents. Carson, who identifies as a “sexuality educator, speaker, and author,” advised parents to establish a “culture of consent” in the household by first asking a baby for permission before initiating a necessary task like a diaper change. To many parents, this suggestion—which adds a layer of required authorization before performing an essential, often urgent chore—is simply unacceptable, impractical, and profoundly misunderstood.

I. The Ethical Motivation: Establishing Bodily Autonomy

The core of Carson’s argument, delivered during a 2018 interview on ABC, is rooted in a modern ethical framework that prioritizes bodily autonomy and respect for the individual, regardless of age. Her intention is not to introduce bureaucracy into childcare but to teach a fundamental, lifelong lesson.

The Goal: A Culture of Consent

Carson acknowledged that this concept is typically discussed and actively implemented with older children (usually aged three or older), but she firmly believes it is crucial to convey the essence of consent to them much earlier—starting in infancy.

According to her, the goal is to establish a culture of consent in the household. This culture is built on a simple premise: a child’s body belongs to them, and all interactions with their body should be preceded by a request for permission. This practice serves as a fundamental proactive safeguarding measure.

Proactive Safeguarding: By repeatedly asking permission before touching a child’s body for necessary care (diaper changes, dressing, bathing), the parent subtly instills the message that physical boundaries are important and that the child has a right to say no. This training, performed hundreds of times over early childhood, is intended to build the child’s self-awareness and confidence, giving them a foundation of confidence to refuse unwanted touch later in life.
The Power of Respect: Carson contends that by asking, parents model deep respect for the child’s personhood. Even though the baby cannot verbally respond, the action demonstrates that the parent views the child as an individual whose physical domain deserves acknowledgment, rather than an object whose body can be manipulated solely at the parent’s convenience.

The Challenge of Nonverbal Communication

Carson acknowledged the obvious practical challenge: infants won’t be able to answer to requests for permission verbally. However, she argued that parents should watch for nonverbal clues that indicate consent or resistance.

Reading the Cues: She suggests that parents and toddlers can connect more deeply if they give themselves time to anticipate things and wait for nonverbal clues. This requires the parent to become exquisitely sensitive to the baby’s emotional state—watching for eye contact, a slight movement toward the parent, or a reduction in tension as a subtle nonverbal “yes.” Conversely, a tense body, turning away, or crying should be interpreted as a “no” that requires pausing and calming the child before proceeding.

II. The Practical Reality: The Parent’s Dilemma

The advice, while ethically sound in its long-term goal, faces severe scrutiny when confronted with the immediate, messy realities of infant care. The way the reporters responded to the notion on ABC was perhaps the most fascinating thing of all—they were not only exceedingly talkative, but they were also speculating about the very real possibility of a refusal.

The Limits of a “No”

The primary objection from parents is a pragmatic one: What happens if the child refuses?

Hygiene vs. Autonomy: Diaper changing is a mandatory chore dictated by hygiene and health. A soiled diaper cannot wait for an extended negotiation. Unlike an older child who can be reasoned with, an infant crying “no” must still have the task performed to prevent painful diaper rash, infections, and discomfort. The immediate needs of the child’s physical health must supersede the philosophical lesson in consent.
The Inconsistency Problem: Parents worry that if they establish the right to say “no” for essential care, they are creating a confused, inconsistent boundary. How does a child differentiate between a necessary diaper change (where the “no” will eventually be overridden for hygiene) and a genuinely unsafe touch (where the “no” must be absolute)?

The Risk of Performative Parenting

The advice also risks creating a scenario of performative parenting—where the parent goes through the ritual of asking permission not for the benefit of the baby, but to satisfy an external, ethical obligation.

Authenticity of the Response: If the parent knows they must change the diaper regardless of the baby’s squirming, the “consent request” risks becoming a hollow formality. The baby, who is highly attuned to genuine emotion, may sense the inauthenticity, undermining the intended lesson.
The Disliked Chore: To be quite honest, changing diapers is a chore that most parents dislike, finding it stressful and often disgusting. Adding the extra layer of needing authorization before doing so—and waiting for the often non-existent “nonverbal clues”—adds unnecessary pressure to an already essential, demanding task.

III. Translating Philosophy into Practicality

The challenge is how to reconcile Carson’s crucial ethical goal (bodily autonomy) with the practical demands of infant hygiene. Many psychologists agree that the principle is valid, but the execution must be adjusted for age.

The Age-Appropriate Approach

Instead of interpreting a baby’s silence as consent, the most effective practical application of this philosophy involves respectful communication and anticipation rather than required negotiation:

Narrating the Action: The parent can establish the culture of respect by narrating the action before it happens, without waiting for an ambiguous nonverbal clue. The goal shifts from asking permission to providing respect and reducing the startle reflex. Example: “I see you’re wet, sweetie. I am going to change your diaper now so you feel dry. I’m lifting your leg.” This teaches the child that their body will not be handled without warning.
Allowing Agency: As soon as the child can sit or stand (around 12-18 months), the parent can introduce agency—allowing the child to choose the diaper or the clean clothes, giving them a sense of control over the process.
Modeling Respect for Others: The final piece is modeling. Parents who consistently demonstrate clear boundaries and respect for the bodies of other adults (e.g., asking before giving a hug to a friend, or respecting a child’s refusal to kiss a relative) provide the most powerful, lasting lessons in consent.

Carson’s advice, while generating controversy, ultimately served a profound purpose: it forced a crucial discussion about how early we must start teaching our children that their physical personhood is sacred, guaranteeing them the foundation of confidence necessary to protect themselves throughout their lives. The core lesson—that the spirit of consent should be a constant cultural value in the home—remains universally important.