Online Safety for Neurodivergent Children
What Parents and Teachers Need to Know
4 in 5 children with additional needs experience harm online. The standard advice was not written for them.
4 in 5 children with additional needs in the UK report experiencing harm online. That figure comes from Internet Matters’ Digital Wellbeing Index, published in 2025, based on surveys of 1,270 children aged 9 to 16.1 It is higher than the rate for the general child population, it sits alongside another finding from the same research that I think deserves equal attention:
64 percent of children with additional needs said being online offered them friendship and support, compared to 56 percent of their neurotypical peers.
The online world is often where neurodivergent children find communities built around their specific interests, where they can connect without the sensory and social demands of physical interaction and where they feel less different. For many of these children, the internet is not just an entertainment option, it is a lifeline.
I want you to hold both of those realities at the same time throughout this post. Because any honest conversation about online safety for neurodivergent children has to start from the fact that taking the internet away is not the answer and for many families, it is not even an option.
Why the risk is higher
Internet Matters’ 2025 survey found that children with additional needs are significantly more likely than their peers to be contacted by strangers online (33 percent, compared to 25 percent), more likely to be bullied by people they know (26 percent vs 12 percent) and by people they do not know (28 percent vs 15 percent), and more likely to have their personal information requested online (28 percent vs 16 percent).2
Research from Manchester Metropolitan University, published in 2024, found that children with SEND face higher rates of social exclusion, isolation, and bullying offline as well, and that this exclusion increases their online vulnerability. Children who are already isolated are more likely to seek connection in digital spaces, and less likely to have the peer support networks that help children recognise and resist manipulation when they encounter it.3
Online grooming does not usually look like danger. It looks like attention. It looks like flattery. It looks like someone who understands you in a way nobody else does and is interested in the same things you are. For a child who has experienced persistent rejection from peers, that kind of attention can feel like exactly what they have been missing.
The specific vulnerabilities that standard advice misses
The standard online safety advice assumes children can read between the lines. It assumes they can recognise when a conversation is escalating, notice when flattery is being used as a tool, identify when someone is asking for something they should not, feel confident enough to name it and walk away.
For many autistic children, those assumptions do not hold. Difficulty recognising social manipulation, a tendency toward literal interpretation of what is said, a different relationship with social rules, and a deep need for authentic connection can all create specific vulnerabilities that predators learn to exploit. This is not about intelligence. It is about how certain minds are wired, and how the tactics used by people who harm children are designed precisely to exploit the desire for connection.
Children with ADHD may face different but equally real vulnerabilities, impulsivity, a tendency toward risk-taking, difficulty with the kind of long-term thinking that helps a child stop and consider consequences before sharing something online and a profile that may mean they seek and receive more online attention than they can safely navigate.
Services for Education, in their safeguarding guidance published in April 2026, notes that neurodiverse children, including those with autism, ADHD, and learning difficulties, may often be socially isolated, have difficulty understanding social communication and social cues, and can find sensory input overwhelming. These differences can make it harder for them to seek help, articulate what is happening, or recognise when a situation is unsafe.4
What to do differently
The principles below apply across different diagnoses. Every neurodivergent child is different, and what works for one child will not work for another. These are starting points, not scripts.
Adjust the conversation to their communication style.
If your child communicates best through visual information, written scripts, or roleplay, use those formats for online safety conversations too. A verbal explanation that works for a neurotypical teenager will not land the same way for every child. Ask what would help them understand. Some children do better with a written set of rules. Others with a flowchart. Others with a series of “what would you do if” scenarios practised together.
Be specific, not general.
“Be careful who you talk to online” is too abstract for many children to act on. Try instead: “If someone online asks for a photo of you, the answer is always no, even if they say they are a teenager and you have been talking for weeks.” The more concrete the rule, the more accessible it is in the moment.
Rehearse the scenarios.
Many neurodivergent children learn best through repeated practice. Role-play what to say if someone asks them to keep a conversation secret from you. Role-play what to do if something arrives in a message that makes them feel uncomfortable. The script they rehearse is the one they will have access to when they need it.
Name the manipulation tactics clearly.
Tell them that people online sometimes pretend to be teenagers when they are adults. Tell them that flattery and gifts are sometimes used to build trust before asking for something. Name the tactic plainly. For children who take things at face value, being told what to watch for removes the need to read between lines they cannot see.
Make the open door explicit and repeat it.
A single conversation is rarely enough. Return to it and make the no-punishment promise in a form that fits your child. If they respond better to written agreements, write it down (I have a contract generator on the CSG Resource Hub). If they need to hear it many times before they believe it, say it many times. For a child who has experienced consequences from adults after disclosing something difficult in the past, the promise needs to be consistent before it will be believed.
Parental controls help, but cannot do everything.
They can reduce exposure to certain content and limit who can contact your child. What they cannot do is protect a child who is actively seeking connection and has found it somewhere, but an adult intends harm. The conversation is the protection that follows your child into every space that parental control cannot reach.
⚡Please don’t forget to react & restack if you appreciate my work. More engagement means more people might see it. ⚡
For teachers and DSLs
The SEND community in UK schools is significant. An estimated 15 percent of the UK population is neurodivergent.5 In any classroom or year group, there will be children for whom standard online safety education is landing differently than intended.
If your school delivers PSHE or online safety content, consider whether the format, pace, and assumed social knowledge in that content are accessible to children with SEND. Concrete language, visual aids, and rehearsal-based activities are likely to be more effective than abstract discussion.
If a child with additional needs discloses something that has happened online, be aware that they may describe it differently from a neurotypical child. Literal language, unusual framing, or a flat affect when describing distressing content does not mean the child is unharmed. Follow your school’s safeguarding procedures under KCSIE 2024 and refer to your DSL.
Children with SEND are over-represented in referrals to the National Referral Mechanism for potential exploitation. In 2023, there were 7,432 referrals of potentially exploited children, with anecdotal evidence suggesting a high proportion involved children with SEND.6 DSLs should apply extra attentiveness to online safety concerns for this group.
The Online Safety Act 2023 and the RSHE framework, coming into force in September 2026, both apply to all children, including those with additional needs. Schools have a responsibility to deliver online safety education in a form that is accessible.
You are not alone in this
I know this is a topic where parents and carers often feel they are making it up as they go along. There is not enough targeted support, the advice that exists is often generic and the worry can feel relentless.
Internet Matters has an online hub specifically for parents and carers of children with additional needs, where they can find tailored resources and practical guidance. It is worth bookmarking if you have not already.7
The most important thing you can do tonight is not set up parental controls. It is to have one conversation, in whatever format works for your child, that makes it a little easier for them to come to you if something goes wrong. That is what actually keeps them safe.
As always, thank you for your support. Please share this across your social media, and if you do have any comments, questions, or concerns, then feel free to reach out to me via the Social page, as I am always happy to spend some time helping to protect children online.
Remember that becoming a paid subscriber means supporting a charity very close to my heart and helping it do amazing things for people. Childline, I will donate 100% of paid subscriptions collected every six months, as I don’t do any of this for financial gain. Or to make a one off donation go to my Just Giving page.
If you or a child you know needs support:
Childline: 0800 1111 | childline.org.uk
Available 24/7, 365 days a year. Free, confidential, and here for every child.
Internet Matters. “4 in 5 UK children with additional needs say they suffer harm online.” Press release, 2025. internetmatters.org. Based on Digital Wellbeing Index survey of 1,270 UK children aged 9-16, September-October 2025. Both the 4 in 5 harm figure and the 64% friendship figure come from this primary source. Accessed 26 June 2026.
Internet Matters. Digital Wellbeing Index 2025. Specific risk comparison statistics (stranger contact 33% vs 25%, peer bullying 26% vs 12%, unknown bullying 28% vs 15%, personal information requests 28% vs 16%) from the same press release. Accessed 26 June 2026.
Learning Disability Today. “Unmet needs leave SEND children at risk of exploitation.” July 2024, updated May 2025. learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk. Reports Manchester Metropolitan University / University of Portsmouth study. 2023 National Referral Mechanism figures: 7,432 referrals. Accessed 26 June 2026.
Services For Education. “Neurodiversity and Safeguarding: Understanding Additional Vulnerabilities and Strengthening Practice.” April 2026. servicesforeducation.co.uk. Accessed 26 June 2026.
Neurodiversity Directory. “Neurodiversity Statistics & Neurodivergent Research Data.” June 2026. neurodiversity.directory. Cites City & Guilds Neurodiversity Index 2025 for 15% UK population figure. Accessed 26 June 2026.
Learning Disability Today. As per [3]. 7,432 NRM referrals in 2023; anecdotal evidence of high SEND proportion. Treat the SEND proportion as anecdotal, not confirmed data, when referencing.
Internet Matters. Additional needs hub. internetmatters.org/additional-needs. Dedicated resources for parents and carers of children with additional needs. Accessed 26 June 2026.
Thank you so much for writing, and sharing this incredibly valuable information, Dale!