Unpairing is supposed to erase all content and settings on your watch, but in my case, it did not. If it doesn’t work for you either, tap Settings on the watch, then General > Reset > Erase All Content and Settings.

At this point, you can have your kid put it on (if it’s charged). The watch will say Bring iPhone Near Apple Watch. If you open the Watch app, it lets you choose to Set Up for a Family Member. Aim the phone’s viewfinder at the slowly moving animation to pair, or select Pair Manually.

Apple’s tutorial is pretty straightforward from this point. I picked a passcode that’s easy for my daughter to remember and picked her from my family list. I continued cellular service. Then I set up all the usual features and services for an Apple Watch, including Ask to Buy so she couldn’t buy anything from the app store without my permission, Messages, and Emergency SOS.

I also chose to limit my daughter’s contacts on the watch. First, go to Settings > iCloud > Contacts on your phone and make sure it’s toggled on. Then click out, go back to Settings > Screen Time > Family Member > Communication Limits. You need to request your child’s permission to manage their contacts and approve it from the kid’s watch. On their watch, you can add and rename contacts from your contact list (Dad becomes “Grandpa,” Tim becomes “Uncle Timmy,” and so on).

The last step is turning on Schooltime, which is basically a remote-controlled version of an adult Work Focus. It blocks apps and complications, but emergency calls can still come through. The setup tutorial walks you through how to set up Schooltime on your child’s watch, but if you skip it during setup, you can manage it later. On your iPhone, tap All Watches > Your Child’s Watch > Schooltime > Edit Schedule.

I elected to turn Schooltime on when my child is in school and turn it off during afterschool care, but you can also click Add Time if you’d like to turn it on during a morning class, take a break for lunch, and then turn it back on again. Your kid can just turn the digital crown to exit Schooltime, but that’s OK—you can check their Schooltime reports on your iPhone too.

To manage your child’s watch, go to your Watch > All Watches > Family Watches > Your Kid’s Apple Watch. This is how you install updates and manage settings. For more settings that you can turn on or off, check out Apple’s full list here. For example, you can check health details, set up a Medical ID, or even edit their smart replies.

Fun for Everyone

Just as with a grown-up Apple Watch, the first thing you’ll probably want to do is switch the watch face. Hold down the screen and wait for the face to shrink, and swipe to switch. (You probably also want to buy a tiny kid-specific watch band.)

We got my daughter an Apple Watch, so I’d be able to see her on Find My, and she could contact me via phone or the Messages app, which she does with regrettable frequency.

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all when it comes to toys aimed at providing accessibility or inclusion, just like there isn’t one type of disability. Very few toys or brands are actually made with disability at the forefront, the exception being Cute Little Fuckers, a queer,- trans-, and disabled-owned sex toy brand. (I tested three of the brand’s toys, above.)

So instead, I thought of my own needs as someone with upper-limb disabilities, and I talked to other disabled folks, including those who use wheelchairs or have lower-body disabilities, to find out what they look for in their sex toys. This included tools like slings, pillows, and chairs that help with positioning during sex (or solo play). (More on that below.)

Since I have a vagina and upper limb disabilities, many of the toys I tested were aimed at people like me, but many, like app-connected G-spot and clitoral toys, have similar versions with the same in-app features, except for people with penises or those that prefer anal play.

I took many factors intro consideration, including weight, length, girth; whether the toy was easy to hold or could be wedged; if you could just lie on it or use in multiple positions; and if it could be controlled via buttons (and how difficult those might be to press), in-app, or with a remote control. Once the individual realizes what they need from a toy to make it work for their body and ability, it’ll be easier to narrow down the toy that’d work best.

I tested several sex toy holders, including those that fit into a pillow for mounting or lying, and a sex toy holder that suctions to surfaces or straps into place. I also tested several toys that someone can just grind against, lie on, or sit on.

I wasn’t able to test a hand harness to keep the toy in your hand, as it didn’t fit my small hand, but these can be a more controlled way to hold a sex toy rather than wedging with pillows, grinding on, or using a surface mount.

The Liberator Wedge also came highly recommended to me, but I also wasn’t able to test it. This angled pillow makes sex easier for those in non-normative bodies or for those who suffer from pain, as they can reach the angles and positions needed to relieve pressure. As I mentioned above, a pillow also helps to achieve deeper penetration with partners with smaller penises or bigger bodies, where genitals can be trickier to reach without additional help.

Brands like IntimateRider make chairs and sex accessories for wheelchair users, paraplegics, and others who have spinal cord injuries and similar disabilities where traditional sex may not be an option without these valuable tools.

Closer cooperation between regulators and increased funding are needed for the UK to deal effectively with the human rights harms associated with the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. 

On 4 February 2026, the Joint Committee on Human Rights met to discuss whether the UK’s regulators have the resources, expertise and powers to ensure that human rights are protected from new and emerging harms caused by AI. 

While there are at least 13 regulators in the UK with remits relating to AI, there is no single regulator dedicated to regulating AI.

The government has stated that AI should be regulated by the UK’s existing framework, but witnesses from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and Ofcom warned MPs and Lords that the current disconnected approach risks falling behind fast-moving AI without stronger coordination and resourcing. 

Mary-Ann Stephenson, chair of the EHRC, stressed that resources were the greatest hurdle in regulating the technology. “There is a great deal more that we would like to do in this area if we had more resources,” she said.

Highlighting how the EHRC’s budget has remained frozen at £17.1m since 2012, which was then the minimum amount required for the commission to perform its statutory functions, Stephenson told MPs and Lords that this is equivalent to a 35% cut.

Regulators told the committee that the legal framework is largely in place to address AI-related discrimination and rights harms through the Equality Act.  

The constraint is therefore in capacity and resources, not a lack of statutory powers. As a result, much of the enforcement is reactive rather than proactive.

Stephenson said: “The first thing the government should do is ensure that existing regulators are sufficiently funded, and funded to be able to work together so that we can respond swiftly when gaps are identified.”

Andrew Breeze, director for online safety technology policy at Ofcom, stressed that regulation could not keep pace with rapid AI development.

However, regulators also stressed that they are technology-neutral; their powers with regard to AI are limited to the use case and deployment level. Ofcom, the ICO and the ECHR have no power to refuse or give prior approval to new AI products. 

The committee itself expressed a strong interest in having a dedicated AI regulator. Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti compared AI regulation to the pharmaceutical industry. 

“Big business, lots of jobs, capable of doing enormous good for so many people, but equally capable of doing a lot of damage,” she said. “We would not dream of not having a specific medicines regulator in this country or any developed country, even though there might be privacy issues and general human rights issues.”

Regulators were in favour of a coordinating body to bring stronger cross-regulator mechanisms rather than a single super-regulator. They stressed that because AI is a general-purpose technology, regulation works best when handled by sector regulators that cover specific domains.

Forms of coordination are already in place, such as the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF), formed in July 2020 to strengthen the working relationship between four regulators. 

It has created cross-regulatory teams to share knowledge and develop collective views on digital issues, including algorithmic processing, design frameworks, digital advertising technologies and end-to-end encryption. 

The then-outgoing information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, told MPs and peers that information-sharing gateways between regulators and the ability to perform compulsory audits “would ensure that technology companies, some the size of nation-states, are not forum shopping or running one regulator against another”.