top of page

CMRRL POSITION STATEMENT

Screen Time for Children Under 2

July 24, 2026

 

Nearly all global health and early childhood organizations strongly advise against any screen time for children under 2, with the limited exception of video chatting with a trusted adult. The Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL) fully supports the intent of this guidance: to protect a child’s most vulnerable developmental window.

 

Research shows that children and parents are happier, healthier, and more deeply connected when they are engaging with each other and the world around them. The presence of screens often disrupts and displaces these developmentally beneficial relationships and activities.

 

At the same time, we cannot ignore the data that clearly reflects the lived realities that most families are facing in a ubiquitous digital age: ​​​

This is not the result of a parenting failure. This is a systemic failure.

“No screens under 2” policies have been in place for more than two decades. In that time, the world and the realities of parenting have changed drastically. As the research and data confirms, widespread screen use among infants and toddlers is the norm, not the exception. Yet, the guidelines and policies have not evolved to address this reality. Instead, they have left families without:

  • Robust and nuanced screen time literacy, tools and resources

  • Developmentally Designed, age-appropriate public media options

  • Intentionally built co-viewing programming and co-learning curriculum

  • Policies and guardrails that protect families from an industry that operates without regulations and accountability

 

CMRRL recommends delaying screen time for as long as possible. However, we also acknowledge that every child is unique and every family’s circumstances are their own to navigate. Families deserve the respect, information, tools, and agency to make the best decisions for their child’s development, both on and off the screen. CMRRL is actively working to close this gap by translating robust research into nuanced screen time digital literacy and resources.

​

 

To be clear: CMRRL is not advocating that screens are safe for children under 2.​​​

What Does the Research Say?

Decades of research have documented the harms of screen time for children under the age of 2. That same body of research, however, also identifies conditions and circumstances under which developmental outcomes have been shown to be neutral or even positive. Of equal importance to highlight, the research methodology itself has flawed foundations. Most research on screen time is conducted using commercial media. Commercial media is content that is funded and designed for the primary objective of financial gain. This skews the findings, ignores non-commercial media, and lumps all media designed for children into the same category with the same outcomes. Research that concludes “no benefit” rarely acknowledges this fact, yet their findings are often presented as absolutes, with no mention of the confines under which the research was conducted. For example, Division 46 of the American Psychological Association found that over the past three decades, professional advocacy organizations have released an increasing number of policy and resolution statements concerning the effects of media on youth. They found that the majority had overstated the evidence for harmful effects and ignored or downplayed controversies in the various research fields. Across the 24 policy statements they studied, they found that these policy statements tend to be more definitive than is warranted by the underlying science, and often ignore conflicting research results.

Why Do Families Turn to Screens?

Research shows that screen time is used for various reasons: •  Competing demands or obligations •  Calming and soothing a distressed child or supporting necessary routines •  Travel •  Parental rest and recovery •  Perceived educational value •  Connection with familyLimited awareness of the guidelines or of the potential for harmLimited access to alternate options •  Lack of childcare options when other obligations are competing for time •  Differing family circumstances and constraints •  Screens have been introduced without the parent’s knowledge or consent by caregivers, siblings, or relatives •  As a safer alternative to an adverse or unsafe situation Every parent raising a child in today’s digital age deserves robust and nuanced screen time literacy, tools, and resources that allow them to have the education and agency to make important decisions for their family. That does not mean promoting “safer screen time” as an equal alternative. It means educating families on the benefits of abstinence and on the difference between screen time harm and harm reduction, respecting their decisions, and providing evidence-informed public media alternatives so that commercial programming and platforms are not the only option.

What is the Impact of “No Screens” Guidelines on Families?

Guidance that offers only prohibition produces measurable side effects, with many parents reporting feelings of guilt and anxiety in relation to their child’s screen use. Research links screen-related guilt and anxiety to increased parental stress and poorer parental mental health, which in turn may affect the well-being of the child. Sociological analysis of screen time discourse finds that there is a common assumption that the burden and blame lies solely on the parents; that they are the ones responsible for the risks. The truth, however, is more complex. In many instances, these risks are substantially produced by systems outside the home. Shaming parents does not reduce screen time; it cuts off the literacy, conversation, and the critical support that could lead to more informed choices. Current screen time guidelines and policies fail to place any burden or accountability on the industries that target families and profit off their screen use. These industries face no content standards, no accountability for deceptive marketing claims, and no obligations to change platform mechanics. “No screens” policies have stalled any momentum to: •  Regulate and hold accountable the companies that target this age group •  Develop robust and nuanced screen time literacy, tools and resources for this age group • Research developmentally designed co-viewing programming for the many children under 2 who are watching screens as part of their daily routine The burden of accountability must be equally shared, at a minimum, with the children’s media and technology industries that target this age group, and that accountability should not stop at age 2. “No screens” guidelines have created a void that commercial companies and investors have rushed to fill; prioritizing the financial health of the company while incentivizing and rewarding profit-driven outcomes. Until that accountability exists, we recommend that families approach programming from for-profit companies with caution and give preference to providers that have published an independent audit of their digital products and marketing claims.

Is There Any Developmentally Appropriate Programming for Children Under 2?

Content and context matter greatly. Yet, developmentally designed, evidence-informed programming for children under 2 has no defined standard, certification, or governing body that a parent can clearly identify. In the absence of regulations, commercial media companies have been able to freely set their own “safety,” “quality,” and “educational” labeling and marketing claims without the need for independent verification. The lack of regulations has enabled companies to buy endorsements from trusted experts and organizations without the need for any independent evidence to verify those claims. Even the most trusted and well-respected public media programs, recommended by top pediatric and children’s health organizations, contain overstimulating production techniques. These trusted recommendations are solely based on the educational nature of the script. They fail to take into account overstimulating audiovisual production techniques, which research has shown to be one of the most harmful aspects of media designed for this age group. Another misconception is that slow = safe. Even “slow” programming can contain many other harmful elements and overstimulating production techniques that are not obvious to the untrained eye. By ignoring the aspects that have been shown to present the most harm, it gives families a false sense of security and confidence in their choices. This is another reason why practitioners and parents alike should have access to robust and nuanced screen time literacy. When avoiding screens is not possible, we strongly recommend avoiding content that exceeds a young child’s ability to process or make meaning of what they are watching. We suggest that families create their own programming by filming themselves, relatives, or caregivers reading a book, acting out a story, singing nursery rhymes, or performing other activities that mirror a child’s real-life experiences. This should resemble the natural interactions that occur between an adult and a child. No experience or fancy equipment is needed. You can use a phone, tablet or laptop to record these in one continuous performance with a steady camera that is not constantly moving. Families can create a private curated playlist, as opposed to defaulting to commercial media or platforms. These videos should be co-viewed and scaffolded by an attuned caregiver whenever possible. Episodes should be repeated if more time is required within a viewing session, rather than moving on to a new one. To determine what may or may not be appropriate: we recommend turning off the audio and watching just the visuals for a few minutes. If you, as an adult, are unable to make immediate sense of the visual storytelling, then neither can a small child whose brain is not yet ready to absorb this content. We recommend programming that mirrors real life as closely as possible, without any artificial audiovisual production techniques or elements. However, turning to a commercial platform like YouTube to find this type of content, as so many families do, introduces many other well-documented harms such as autoplay, inappropriate algorithms and advertisements, data collection and targeting, AI slop, attention-grabbing visuals and platform elements, and many other aspects that we recommend avoiding. To be clear: we are not advocating that screens are safe for children under 2.

What is CMRRL’s Position on Screen Time?

CMRRL recommends delaying screen time for as long as possible. We acknowledge that every child is unique and every family’s circumstances are their own to navigate. Families and caregivers deserve the respect, information, tools, and agency to make the best decisions for their child’s development, both on and off the screen. Much of what is currently marketed and delivered to this age group should in no way be considered safe because it is created and delivered within a commercially incentivized ecosystem as opposed to one built to support the specific developmental needs of children under 2.

What Safety Protocols Does CMRRL Recommend for Children 5 and under?

Although this statement focuses on children under 2, neither the developmental risks nor the regulatory void ends at a child’s second birthday. The protocols below therefore extend through age 5. Due to the lack of robust and nuanced screen time literacy, CMRRL is calling for every program and platform directed at young children to carry a clear advisory warning: “Screen use may cause developmental harm in children ages 5 and under. Choosing programs from trusted sources, actively co-viewing with a child, and limiting the amount of time spent on screens can greatly reduce the potential for harm.” CMMRL is calling for all marketing claims and developmental labels targeting children to require independent verification by a trusted regulatory body. Platforms, as well as programming, must carry enforceable regulations and safety standards, neither of which currently exist.

​CMRRL Calls For Safety Standards and Policy Reform

•  Independent research into intentionally, Developmentally Designed content for ages 0–5. CMRRL has completed initial observational pilot research in this area and welcomes further research and collaboration in this field. • Development of robust and nuanced screen time literacy training, tools and resources for parents, practitioners, and educators, delivered with the same respect and care as guidance on nutrition, sleep, and physical safety. • Enforceable industry standards and accountability: verified marketing claims, advisory labeling, and platform obligations. CMRRL has developed a rigorous framework to support this work. This is the cycle we must break: “no screens before 2” policies have blocked research and funding for developmentally designed public media content; the absence of developmentally designed content leaves families with only commercial media or public media options that were never developed for this age group; these programming options produce the harms the guidelines warn against; and families absorb the burden and blame while the industry escapes any meaningful regulations or accountability.

​About This Statement

This position statement was issued by the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL), a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. It reflects CMRRL’s position as of the date above and will be reviewed and updated as new evidence emerges.

 

Suggested citation: Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab. CMRRL Position Statement on Screen Time for Children Under 2. 2026.

 

Media, research, and collaboration inquiries: willmaurer@cmrrl.orgResources: www.cmrrl.org

bottom of page