Stop Micromanaging Your Teen’s Social Life
They’re not toddlers. They’re trying to grow up—and gatekeeping every hangout is doing real damage.
Dear Coddling Movie Community,
When did adolescence become a pathology? In an age of helicopter parenting and digital hand-wringing, too many parents treat teens like ticking time bombs instead of young adults finding their way.
Deb Fillman thinks we need a reset.
In this sharp and spicy essay, Deb — a homeschooling consultant, former classroom teacher, and host of The Reason We Learn — urges parents to stop micromanaging their teenagers’ social lives.
Deb is also a member of the Cogito Learning Center, a new initiative helping families reclaim education with clarity, courage, and common sense.
I know you’ll enjoy Deb’s essay. Just wait till you hear her encounters with helicopter parents!
All the best,
Ted
Since When Do Teenagers Need Permission to Have Friends?
Ok, maybe I’m being slightly hyperbolic, but why are teenagers—especially those over 16—still having to ask their parents for permission before they leave the house?
No, I’m serious, this is happening.
Maybe it’s just where I live in Charlotte, North Carolina, but I’m hearing similar stories from other people in other states: parents of teens between the ages of 16–18 are still insisting their children get permission to visit friends outside their homes. Before you ask, I’m not talking about situations in which the teen needs to borrow the car or get a ride—although I’ll get to that separately in a minute—and it’s not because they’ve been grounded or have chores.
Let me be very clear: parents are simply saying “no” to their children going out to socialize, and their reasons seem wildly age-inappropriate:
“I haven’t met their parents.”
“They don’t go to the same school as you.”
“They don’t live in our neighborhood.”
“They are the opposite sex.”
“They live too far away.” (Apparently, 10 miles is "too far away.")
“They have a job/don’t have a job.”
“They are a year older/younger than you are.”
“You didn’t ask me soon enough.” (In some cases, a week in advance isn’t considered “soon enough.”)
Before we go any further, I want to get back to the issue of needing a ride because I can already hear some of you saying, “Oh come on, I’m sure some of this has to do with transportation—it has to!”
Sure, sometimes teens do need rides if they don’t have their own cars, but I have personally experienced this phenomenon multiple times, with multiple parents of teens, who still give their children the third degree—and routinely say “no” even when another parent offers to pick up and drop off! That’s usually when the “I haven’t met their parents,” or “they’re the opposite sex,” or “they live too far away” excuses come into play.
Why This Makes Me Angry
As you’ve probably already guessed, this is personal.
I have one almost-17-year-old daughter still at home who is an extrovert. Like so many teens today, she makes friends online—most of whom are friends of existing friends she knows in person. They’ll talk on the phone or FaceTime for a few weeks, get to know each other, and when they’ve “vetted” each other sufficiently, they’ll make a plan to “hang out,” either two at a time or in a small group.
“Hanging out” usually involves meeting at a café or mall to chat or walk around, seeing a movie, or—if they’ve met in public a few times already—heading to someone’s house for pizza, gaming, or just chatting in person for a couple of hours.
To people of my vintage (GenX), this already sounds like more work than we would have done. We’d meet kids at school, in our neighborhood, at a park, a movie theater, or the mall … strike up a conversation, and next thing you’d know, you’d be on the phone long enough to get in trouble because someone else needed it. Then you’d jump on your bike or find a friend with a car and head out to “meet up with my friends.”
Our parents—if they even knew any of this was going on—usually said something like, “Ok, be home by curfew!” Maybe they’d ask who the kids were, and if they knew their parents, but if you said “Nah,” they wouldn’t say, “Well then you can’t go! Get back here this instant.” I’m laughing just imagining it.
In contrast, my daughter’s generation are the lockdown teens.
They lost two years of their childhoods, cooped up at home most of the time, unable to communicate with other people their age except online. It may be hard for us to imagine making all your friends online, but they had no other choice. Even kids who weren’t homeschooled quickly learned how to use technology to make and maintain connections with other kids—and if they didn’t, they were likely very lonely.
And loneliness among teens isn’t just anecdotal. According to the CDC’s 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, over half of U.S. high school girls and nearly a third of boys reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, a steep rise linked in part to social isolation. A 2022 Pew Research Center report also found that teens report increased difficulty making and maintaining in-person friendships, particularly post-pandemic, and many say they feel anxious in social settings where they must initiate or maintain conversation.
So when I see my daughter and her online friends putting in the effort to make plans to “hang out” in person, only to have those plans derailed by a parent who can’t seem to accept that it’s perfectly normal for teenagers to make their own plans—or who doesn’t trust their teen’s judgment at all—it makes my blood boil. How are they going to learn to set boundaries, take calculated risks, and reduce their social anxiety if parents don’t ease up a bit?
RELATED
“Independence Therapy” Could Revolutionize Anxiety Treatment for Kids
How Parents Can Fight the Obsessive Fear of Unlikely Dangers: Paranoia won't help you or your kids
Where Do Mall Rats Go When They Can’t Go to the Mall? Many stores ban unaccompanied minors
Case in Point: The 18-Year-Old Whose Mom Said “No”
This brings us to the event that set me off today.
My daughter has a friend—let’s call him Simon (not his real name)—who is 18. He’s a senior in high school and they met through mutual friends. I’ve met him. He’s a good kid: shy, but hardworking, with his own car. He helps take care of his younger siblings and grandmother—the kind of person you’d want your daughter to befriend.
The last time Simon and my daughter “hung out” was about three weeks ago. I drove her to a local boba tea shop to meet him, and then they walked around a nearby Goodwill store thrifting for about an hour. I stayed nearby—not to hover, but because it was too far from home to drop off and come back. I sat at another table doing some work, then browsed the store while they finished shopping. I liked him. It was refreshing to see two teens chatting and laughing and just being teenagers.
Fast-forward to today. They had made a plan to have lunch and hang out at a local food hall. He was going to pick her up, take her there, and bring her back—because he “felt bad” that I had to drive last time. I said, “Sounds like fun!” and “That’s considerate of him.”
But then my daughter realized she had a lot of studying to do for the ACT and didn’t want to spend as much time in the car. So she asked if they could go somewhere closer instead. Simon said sure—but a couple of hours later, he called her to cancel. “My mom said no,” he said. “She doesn’t like that we changed our plans.”
OK y’all, help me out here. What the…? He’s eighteen. It’s his car.
The change was minor—closer, less driving, same time frame. But apparently, that was too much for his mother. When my daughter asked if there was anything she could do—like have me talk to his mom—he said no. She just doesn’t like “sudden changes in plan.”
At first I wondered if he was just making an excuse, but my daughter said she could hear his mom yelling in the background—specifically about the change in plans.
Needless to say, they were both disappointed. I was too. It made no sense, and it wasn’t the first time a parent has interfered with plans like this.
A Pattern of Gatekeeping
Over the past year, I’ve seen a pattern.
Parents refusing to let teens get together unless it’s under their roof. It happens more often with girls—even when their friend is also a girl—but I’ve seen it with boys too. I’ve invited my daughter’s friends to our home, but their parents rarely allow it unless she goes there first. And every time she tries to meet someone—male or female, group or one-on-one—the other mom insists on calling me to “meet” first.
I’ve been grilled more times than I can count. Actual questions I’ve been asked:
“Why doesn’t your daughter go to school?”
(She’s homeschooled.)“Yes, but why?”
“How long have you lived in your current house?”
“Why does she have a different last name than you?”
“What kind of car do you drive?”
“Will you be staying at the movie with them?”
What has happened to us?
Is this generational? Cultural? Geographic? I've heard similar stories from other states, so I don’t think it’s just Charlotte, or me. And if these questions were truly about getting to know me, I’d be fine with it. But they’re not. They’re about control.
Let Go—They Have to Learn Somehow
Teenagers are supposed to be preparing for independence, not just in terms of jobs or driving, but in managing relationships, risk, and their own time. If parents keep inserting themselves into every friendship, every plan, every text thread—how will their kids learn to navigate life without them?
Trust doesn’t mean being reckless. It means giving your teen enough room to grow. Let them make plans. Let them choose friends. Let them decide how to spend an afternoon—without needing to submit a proposal a week in advance.
The world is hard enough to navigate without your own parents standing in the way. Gatekeeping your teen’s friendships may feel like protection, but often, it’s just fear dressed up as love.
And fear won’t teach them anything—except not to tell you next time.
This essay first appeared in The Reasons We Learn
 | A guest post by
|
The real crisis we face today goes far beyond the surface debate about whether parents should micromanage their teenagers or give them total freedom. On the surface, it may seem like a question of parenting style—should you police your child’s every move, or let them find their own way? But this conversation misses the point. The fundamental problem is that the essential foundation of values—honesty, responsibility, and self-discipline—was not established early enough or firmly enough.
When a parent is still struggling to impose boundaries on a 17-year-old, it is a clear sign that the groundwork has failed. [Teen pregnancy rates in the US remain very high, which economically aligns with the system’s interest in maintaining cycles of dependency and instability—the jail system also accounts for economic output higher than other countries.] This demonstrates how a lack of strong values and poor critical thinking early on can have profound personal and societal consequences. When young people lack the ability to make thoughtful life choices, they are more vulnerable to paths that perpetuate instability, such as early parenthood or involvement with the criminal justice system. Both outcomes feed into economic structures that benefit from a dependent and marginalized population.
(Incarcerated workers in the United States are paid between 13 and 52 cents an hour on average in the most commonly held jobs. In many Southern states—including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas—most prison labor is unpaid. This means the state is not incentivized to provide fair wages, improve working conditions, or invest in rehabilitation, because it benefits directly from a virtually cost-free labor force. The system relies on this cheap or unpaid labor to reduce operational costs and generate revenue, creating a perverse economic incentive to maintain high incarceration rates. Just as open borders supply an endless stream of cheap labor from outside the country, the prison system supplies a captive, low-cost workforce from within, making mass incarceration economically advantageous for both state governments and private interests. Yet, the reality is that people—regardless of whether they are incarcerated—should be paid fairly for their labor. Restitution for victims is important, but paying workers 13 to 52 cents an hour, or nothing at all in many Southern states, is indefensible. As soon as you have a captive population, whether imported as cheap labor or imprisoned as forced labor, you create a system where others profit from their exploitation, and the most basic promise of equal protection and dignity under the law is betrayed.) [Do they want your child well educated? Absolutely not - Teen pregnancy rates are significantly higher in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas compared to the national average. Crime rates are generally higher too.])
At first glance, these problems might seem to be just the result of personal or family failures. But this failure is not just a family issue; it is a reflection of broader societal decay. Traditional pillars that once instilled shared values—family, schools, and communities—have been deliberately weakened. As a result, young people are left without the clear standards and expectations that once guided them. Society now often rewards victimhood over resilience, undermining the development of strong character and self-reliance. This erosion of shared values is no accident; rather, it serves the interests of powerful institutions and governments that benefit from a fragmented, dependent population that is easy to manage.
Economist Herman Daly has explained that modern economies, especially in the United States, rely on a constant supply of cheap labor. This economic model is sustained by fostering economic insecurity, unstable family structures, and limited access to quality education. For example, single mothers working low-wage jobs with little security often raise children without stability or strong values, perpetuating a cycle of dependence. This is not an unfortunate side effect but a deliberate feature of economic policy. The system thrives on having people too busy surviving to demand better wages, education, or political influence.
Policies such as open borders further reinforce this system by importing an endless supply of cheap labor undercutting other wage earners. Yet, any questioning of this policy is quickly branded as “racist,” especially among young people, effectively shutting down the kind of critical debate that is necessary for a healthy democracy. This suppression of debate is part of a larger trend: critical thinking itself—the ability to reason, question, weigh evidence, and seek truth—has been marginalized. Once the crown jewel of elite education and, for a brief period, accessible to ordinary people, critical thinking enabled citizens to challenge authority and demand accountability.
Today, however, critical thinking is often dismissed or even condemned as exclusionary or “racist.” This is no coincidence. Those in power fear a population trained to question, analyze, and refuse easy answers. As critical thinking quietly disappears from general education, people become easier to manipulate. Anger, when not grounded in understanding or self-reflection, becomes a weapon wielded by politicians and media to divide and control.
Meanwhile, the “diversity” promoted today is not about genuine inclusion or the enrichment of society through different perspectives. While different perspectives can be valuable, a functioning society cannot survive without a foundation of shared core values. You cannot have a society where people fundamentally disagree on basic principles like equal human rights and common humanity. What is promoted as “diversity” has become, at its core, a mechanism to justify the importation of an endless supply of cheap labor. By focusing the public’s attention on identity politics and grievances, the system creates perpetual distraction and division, making it nearly impossible for people to unite or rise up against unfair ecological or labor laws. When large populations are brought in to work for less, it becomes easier for those in power to bypass fair labor standards and environmental protections, all while weakening the social fabric. The constant emphasis on diversity is not about strengthening society, but about breaking it—fragmenting communities, suppressing wages, and ensuring that people remain too divided and distracted to demand real change.
In this environment, economic participation—the ability to work and pay taxes—has been cynically reduced to the sole measure of integration. Governments and institutions do not care if people share democratic values, respect human rights, or develop critical thinking skills. What matters is maintaining a large, cheap, and compliant workforce that does not disrupt the economic machine. Even conflicting beliefs about gender equality or the rule of law are tolerated as long as they do not interfere with economic productivity.
As a result, the system discourages real integration based on shared values and respect for societal norms. It celebrates surface-level diversity while ignoring the deeper work needed to build a cohesive, thoughtful society. The outcome is a fragmented population, angry and distracted, perfectly suited to be managed by those in power.
The true risk is a society filled with anger but lacking the tools to understand or address its root causes. Without critical thinking, anger becomes a tool for manipulation rather than a catalyst for change. An angry crowd is not a thinking crowd; it waits for someone to direct its rage.
To reclaim freedom, democracy, and genuine autonomy, we must restore shared values and critical thinking to education and public life. Independence for young people should not be measured by age or trends but by whether they have internalized core values and developed the ability to think critically about their choices and consequences. Without these foundations, stepping back is not empowerment—it is abandonment.
The real work lies in building these qualities from the start, so independence becomes meaningful and constructive. Until we address these root issues, debates about parenting will remain shallow, failing to solve the deeper problems that shape our society. Increasingly, this task will fall to mothers who care deeply about values—democracy, pluralism, and the ability to work together with people from all sorts of different perspectives—but it’s critical to recognize that while perspectives can and should differ, the foundation must be shared values: equal human rights based in common humanity, and above all, the development of critical thinking, because without the ability to question, analyze, and resist manipulation from every source, every other effort risks being led astray. For this reason, what is taught to young children—whether religious or secular—should be limited to universal human values grounded in our shared humanity and equal rights, with more particular beliefs or doctrines introduced only after they reach maturity, so that by then they are inoculated against radicalism and understand that, first and foremost, they are all humans together—a logical approach for anyone genuinely committed to both faith and a just society.