For an ultra-high-net-worth family, one of the most predictable movements of the entire day is often the school run.

Same school.

Same entrance.

Similar arrival time.

Same afternoon pickup location.

Often the same vehicle and driver.

That predictability is convenient for the family. It also creates a routine that deserves attention when designing a personal protection program.

But I want to make something clear from the beginning.

School run security is not about turning a child’s daily life into a security operation.

It is about making sure the adults responsible for that child understand their responsibilities, communicate properly and have a plan when something unexpected happens.

I have spent more than a decade working in executive protection for high-net-worth individuals and families in Southern California. One principle I consider particularly important is that protecting children requires a different approach from protecting an adult executive.

An executive usually understands why security procedures exist.

A young child may not.

An adult principal can make decisions independently.

A six-year-old generally relies on the people around them to recognize problems and make those decisions.

And a teenager may be far more concerned about looking normal in front of friends than following an unnecessarily complicated security procedure.

That changes how I approach the assignment.

For UHNW families in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Encino, Calabasas and surrounding Los Angeles communities, school run security should be built around the actual family.

Where does the child attend school?

Who normally drives?

Who is authorized to collect the child?

What happens when the driver is sick?

Does the nanny accompany the child?

How does the school verify an unfamiliar pickup person?

What happens if a parent changes the schedule unexpectedly?

And what should the child do if someone they recognize arrives but is not authorized to take them home?

Those questions are more useful than simply assigning a bodyguard to sit in an SUV.

The objective is continuity, accountability and discretion.

The child should be able to go to school, participate in activities and spend time with friends without feeling that something dangerous is constantly about to happen.

Meanwhile, the adults responsible for protection should know exactly what they are doing.

Key takeaways

• The school run is a predictable family movement. Repeated pickup locations, schedules and vehicles should be considered during a UHNW family security assessment without automatically treating normal routines as dangerous.
• Transportation safety remains fundamental. In August 2025, LAPD issued a back-to-school safety announcement emphasizing vehicle, pedestrian and student safety for the 2025–2026 academic year. LAPD Back to School Safety Awareness, August 2025.

LAPD Online

• The school’s authorized pickup process should control student release. Drivers, nannies and private protection personnel must work within school procedures, not create an independent system that overrides them.
• A security driver, nanny and executive protection agent have different responsibilities. Families should define those responsibilities clearly, especially when the same employee performs more than one role.
• Privacy is part of child protection. School uniforms, photographs, location tags, activity schedules and social-media posts can reveal information about a child’s daily movements.
• Kidnapping threats and kidnapping scams must be distinguished. In December 2025, the FBI warned that criminals were manipulating publicly available photographs to fabricate evidence of kidnapping and demand ransom. FBI Virtual Kidnapping Alert, December 5, 2025.
• Protection should be age-appropriate. Younger children need simple instructions. Older children need practical safety education that respects their growing independence.
• School run security should connect to the household protection program. Residential security, drivers, nannies, estate managers and executive protection personnel should operate from a coordinated plan.

Why the daily school run deserves a separate security assessment

I would not automatically consider the school run the most dangerous part of a child’s day.

There is no reliable basis for making that blanket statement.

I also do not have a verified 2026 Los Angeles crime statistic showing a specific kidnapping rate for children of ultra-high-net-worth families, so I will not quote one.

The importance of the school run comes from something different.

It is a recurring transition between environments.

The child leaves a private residence.

Travels on public roads.

Arrives at a school that may serve hundreds of other families.

Moves from the responsibility of a parent, nanny or driver into the responsibility of school personnel.

Then the process reverses in the afternoon.

Every transition requires clear responsibility.

The most important question is simple:

Who is responsible for the child at each point in the movement?

If that answer becomes unclear, the security program has an operational weakness.

The transition from home to vehicle

For some UHNW households, morning routines are busy.

One parent may already have left for work.

Another may be traveling.

A nanny prepares the children.

An estate manager coordinates vehicles.

The driver waits outside.

Residential security controls the gate.

There may be several people involved, but nobody should assume that somebody else has confirmed the child is ready and accounted for.

I want a clear handoff.

The adult responsible for the child confirms the movement.

The driver knows who is traveling.

The child enters the correct vehicle.

The vehicle departs without unnecessary confusion.

For a family with multiple children attending different schools, that process deserves particular attention.

One child may leave at 7:15 a.m.

Another at 7:45 a.m.

A younger child may have a different pickup arrangement entirely.

The schedule should be understood by the people who need it without distributing detailed family movements to every household employee.

The transition from vehicle to school

This is where coordination with the school becomes essential.

A protection agent cannot simply invent a drop-off procedure because it appears more secure.

Schools have designated entrances, traffic rules, supervision arrangements and student arrival procedures.

Those procedures exist for a reason.

A security driver should understand them and avoid creating unnecessary disruption.

For younger children, I want confirmation that the child has been transferred into the school’s authorized supervision process.

For older students, the procedure may reasonably provide greater independence.

The correct approach depends on age, school policy and any identified security concerns.

A private security team should support the school’s operations.

Not interfere with them.

School pickup security requires more than recognizing a familiar driver

Afternoon pickup deserves particular attention because schedules change.

A parent has a late meeting.

A child has sports practice.

A nanny calls in sick.

A driver is assigned elsewhere.

A grandparent unexpectedly offers to collect the child.

None of those situations is inherently suspicious.

But they create opportunities for misunderstanding.

The school should know who is authorized to collect the student.

The family should maintain current authorization information.

And drivers or protection personnel should understand the school’s release procedures.

A 2025 California Department of Education document containing school emergency procedures illustrates the importance of verifying authorized adults during student release. The procedures describe comparing emergency-contact information with photographic identification before releasing students to an authorized adult. This is an example of a documented school procedure, not a universal rule governing every private school in California.

California Department of Education, August 2025 school emergency procedures.

California Department of Education

For a UHNW family, I would want the school and family to agree on how pickup changes are authorized.

A familiar employee is not automatically an authorized pickup person

Imagine that a household driver has worked for the family for several years.

The school recognizes the vehicle.

Teachers recognize the driver.

Other parents may recognize the driver.

That familiarity can be helpful.

But it should not replace authorization.

If the driver is no longer employed by the family, the school’s records need to reflect that.

If the family temporarily suspends someone’s authority to collect a child, that change should be communicated through the school’s established procedures.

The same applies to nannies, assistants and other household employees.

A security program should not depend on staff members remembering informal verbal arrangements.

Authorization needs to be current.

Last-minute changes should have a verification process

Suppose a parent sends a message saying that someone new will collect the child.

How does the school know the request is legitimate?

Does the family use a registered contact number?

Does the school require a particular form?

Does an authorized parent need to make the change directly?

I would follow the school’s requirements while ensuring the family understands them.

For households with family offices or personal assistants, I would also clarify who actually has authority to make those changes.

An assistant may coordinate the schedule.

That does not necessarily mean the assistant should independently authorize an unfamiliar person to collect a child.

Authority and convenience are different things.

A professional security driver is not the same as a chauffeur

Transportation is one of the most practical parts of school run security.

For some families, an experienced chauffeur may be entirely appropriate.

For others, particularly where specific protective concerns exist, a trained security driver may provide additional capabilities.

I distinguish those roles.

A chauffeur primarily provides transportation and passenger service.

A security driver has additional responsibilities relating to situational awareness, protective decision-making, communication and emergency procedures.

But neither title should be accepted without understanding the actual training and responsibilities.

For school transportation, I care about several basic areas.

Does the driver operate safely?

Is the vehicle maintained?

Does the driver follow applicable child-restraint requirements?

Can the driver communicate clearly with the family and school?

Does the driver understand what to do during a vehicle breakdown?

What happens if the normal route becomes unavailable?

Can the driver make sensible decisions without creating unnecessary risks?

Those questions matter much more than whether the vehicle looks impressive.

Road safety comes before protective driving techniques

I believe this deserves emphasis.

A child being driven to school is a passenger.

The primary responsibility is getting that child to school safely.

That means normal traffic safety remains fundamental.

In its August 2025 back-to-school announcement, LAPD highlighted the risks associated with school transportation and emphasized safer driving practices around students, pedestrians and school zones.

LAPD Online

A security driver should not use aggressive driving as a demonstration of protective capability.

Nor should the presence of a trained protection agent justify unnecessary traffic violations.

Defensive driving, appropriate following distance, awareness of pedestrians and compliance with school traffic rules are essential.

A child should not face additional transportation risk because a driver wants to appear tactical.

The vehicle should fit the actual assignment

I would not automatically recommend a particular SUV for every UHNW family.

The vehicle should be evaluated based on the number of passengers, ages of the children, required restraints, school access conditions and any identified protective requirements.

A large luxury SUV may be appropriate for one family.

A more discreet vehicle may work better for another.

The school entrance matters.

Some schools have narrow drop-off lanes.

Others have underground parking or controlled entrances.

A vehicle that is convenient at the residence may be difficult to operate at the school.

I want the transportation plan to account for those practical realities.

For a deeper explanation of protective transportation, see Security Drivers in Los Angeles for UHNW Families.

Route planning should reduce unnecessary predictability without disrupting the child

This is where I take a measured approach.

I do not believe changing routes every morning automatically makes a child safer.

Some routes are simply better than others.

They may have fewer traffic conflicts.

Better road conditions.

More reliable travel times.

Or easier access to the school’s approved entrance.

A protective transportation plan should identify sensible primary and alternative routes.

The objective is to maintain flexibility.

If an accident closes the main road, the driver should know another practical approach.

If a wildfire affects nearby streets, the family should not be relying on a single route that may no longer be available.

If a major event creates unusual congestion, the driver should be able to adjust without improvising recklessly.

Predictability is not automatically evidence of danger

Families naturally follow routines.

Children need consistency.

Schools operate on schedules.

Parents have work commitments.

Trying to eliminate every predictable movement can create a level of disruption that is neither necessary nor sustainable.

I would focus on whether the family’s routines expose specific information or create avoidable vulnerabilities.

For example, publicly posting a child’s live location every morning may be unnecessary.

Sharing detailed school transportation schedules with unrelated vendors may also be unnecessary.

But departing for school at a similar time each day is not, by itself, evidence that the child is in danger.

The goal is reasonable protection.

Not creating constant anxiety around normal family life.

The 2025 FBI warning shows why child privacy matters

There is another part of school run security that deserves serious attention.

Information exposure.

On December 5, 2025, the FBI issued a public warning concerning criminals using altered photographs as supposed proof that someone had been kidnapped.

The FBI reported that criminals were obtaining photographs from social media and other publicly available sources, manipulating them and presenting them to families with ransom demands.

According to the alert, offenders sometimes used disappearing messages and urgent threats to pressure recipients before they had time to verify the situation.

That is not the same thing as a physical kidnapping.

The FBI was describing an extortion scam.

But it demonstrates why publicly available information about family members can create problems.

For a UHNW family, I would look at what information is available about children.

Photographs.

School names.

School uniforms.

Sports schedules.

Public events.

Social-media accounts.

Family travel announcements.

The objective is not eliminating a child’s online presence entirely.

It is understanding whether unnecessary information is being shared.

Social media can expose more than intended

A photograph of a child in a school uniform may identify the school.

A sports-team photograph may reveal regular practice locations.

A parent posting from the pickup line may inadvertently show the school’s entrance or routine.

A birthday post may reveal a child’s full name, age and friendships.

None of these posts automatically creates a security incident.

But together they may reveal more information than the family intended.

I want parents, household employees and anyone managing family social-media accounts to understand that.

The same applies to nannies and drivers.

A household employee should not be posting photographs of the family’s children, residence or movements without authorization.

For high-profile families, those boundaries should be clearly established as part of household operating procedures.

The nanny, driver and protection agent should not have overlapping responsibilities by accident

One of the first things I want to establish when assessing school run security for a UHNW family is who actually has responsibility for the child.

That sounds straightforward.

In practice, it can become complicated.

A household may employ a nanny who manages the children’s schedules, a driver who handles transportation and an executive protection agent who accompanies the family when needed.

Sometimes one person performs more than one of those functions.

That is not automatically a problem.

But responsibilities need to be clear.

A nanny may be excellent at caring for children without having any experience in protective operations.

A driver may have years of experience transporting wealthy families but little training in recognizing security concerns.

A protection agent may be highly experienced in executive protection without being the appropriate person to manage a young child’s everyday emotional needs.

I would not assume those skills are interchangeable.

The nanny is responsible for childcare

When a nanny accompanies a child to school, I generally want the nanny focused on the child.

Is the child comfortable?

Are they properly seated?

Do they have their belongings?

Has the school schedule changed?

Does the child need assistance getting into the building?

Those responsibilities should not be compromised because the nanny is also expected to monitor suspicious vehicles, communicate with a security command center and make protective transportation decisions.

That is a different job.

For a family with identified security concerns, separating those responsibilities may be appropriate.

The driver is responsible for safe transportation

A driver should remain focused on operating the vehicle.

That sounds obvious, but I consider it particularly important when multiple household employees are involved.

I do not want a driver attempting to manage a distressed child while navigating Los Angeles traffic.

I do not want the driver constantly looking at messages from the estate manager.

And I do not want the driver making complicated security decisions without training or clear procedures.

If the child requires substantial supervision during transportation, another responsible adult may need to accompany them.

A protection agent can provide additional capabilities when the risk assessment supports that arrangement.

But we should not assign one person more responsibilities than can reasonably be performed safely.

The protection agent coordinates the protective function

For families that require a children security detail in Los Angeles, I want the assigned protector focused on situational awareness, communication and the protective requirements of the movement.

That includes understanding the school’s procedures and maintaining an appropriate working relationship with its staff.

I do not want the protector creating a scene at the entrance.

I do not want the officer intimidating other parents.

And I certainly do not want security personnel behaving as though a private school belongs to the family employing them.

Professional protection should be discreet.

It should make the child’s day easier, not more complicated.

Nanny screening is a separate but connected responsibility

A family may have an excellent school pickup procedure and still have weaknesses in the way household employees are selected and authorized.

That is why child protection and domestic staff vetting should be coordinated.

California maintains the TrustLine registry to assist families in evaluating certain nannies and license-exempt childcare providers.

The California Department of Social Services explains that TrustLine includes fingerprint-based criminal-history screening and examination of California’s Child Abuse Central Index. The department also recommends that parents verify a caregiver’s status rather than simply assume the person remains cleared.

California Department of Social Services

That is a useful tool.

It is not a complete hiring process.

I would still want appropriate reference verification, an understanding of employment history, confirmation of relevant qualifications and a clear explanation of the employee’s responsibilities.

Legal requirements also vary depending on the employment arrangement and position.

A family office should not assume that a staffing agency has completed every check the household considers necessary.

Equally, a security company should not independently conduct restricted background investigations without considering applicable employment and privacy laws.

We cover that broader issue in Household Staff Vetting for UHNW Families.

Children need different security instructions at different ages

This is one of the areas where I believe an overly aggressive approach can do more harm than good.

A child should not feel as though going to school is a dangerous activity.

The adults should carry the burden of planning.

The child should receive only the information appropriate for their age.

Young children need simple rules

For a child in preschool or early elementary school, I would keep the procedures uncomplicated.

Stay with the responsible adult.

Do not leave school with somebody who has not been approved.

If the expected person is not there, remain with school staff.

Ask a teacher for help if something feels wrong.

That is enough for most ordinary circumstances.

A child should not be expected to evaluate whether a stranger is conducting surveillance or determine whether a vehicle is suspicious.

Those are adult responsibilities.

I also would not teach children that every unfamiliar person is dangerous.

That can create unnecessary fear.

The goal is to teach children how to identify trusted adults and ask for assistance.

Older children can understand more responsibility

By middle school, children may move between classrooms, sports facilities and extracurricular activities with greater independence.

They may also have mobile phones.

That creates opportunities for age-appropriate safety education.

For example, a child can understand that a pickup change should be confirmed through the normal family or school process.

They can learn not to share their live location publicly.

They can understand that a person claiming to know their parents does not automatically have permission to take them somewhere.

And they can learn whom to contact if a scheduled ride does not arrive.

None of that requires frightening them.

It is practical education.

Teenagers need privacy as well as protection

Teenagers often have a very different relationship with security.

They may dislike being followed.

They may not want classmates to know their family employs protection personnel.

They may have friends whose parents drive them to activities.

They may want to attend social events without a visible security presence.

I believe those concerns deserve respect.

A protection program that creates constant conflict with a teenager may eventually become less effective because the child stops cooperating.

The solution is not automatically more restrictions.

It is developing clear expectations appropriate to the family’s circumstances.

A teenager should understand the boundaries.

The parents should understand what the protection team can reasonably accomplish.

And the security personnel should know when discretion is more valuable than visibility.

After-school activities create additional handoffs

The school day rarely ends when classes finish.

Children may attend sports practice, tutoring, music lessons, medical appointments, birthday parties or activities at another family’s home.

Those movements should be considered part of the protection program when appropriate.

But I do not recommend treating every activity as a separate security mission.

Instead, I want consistent procedures that work across different locations.

Who is responsible for the child?

Who is providing transportation?

Who knows the expected pickup time?

What happens if the activity runs late?

What happens if the child wants to leave with a friend?

Who can approve that change?

Those questions are particularly important when parents travel frequently or delegate scheduling to household staff.

Sports and extracurricular activities

Sports create a different environment from school.

A child may be on a field with teammates.

Parents may be watching from nearby.

Coaches may supervise groups of children.

Vehicles may be parked some distance from the activity.

A protection agent should not assume that the same procedures used at a private school entrance will work at a public sports field.

I want the agent to understand the venue and coordinate appropriately with the people responsible for the activity.

The goal is to preserve normal participation.

A child should be able to play soccer without feeling singled out by a visible security operation.

Birthday parties and visits to friends

This is another area requiring judgment.

A child may spend an afternoon at a friend’s house.

For most families, this is a normal part of childhood.

For a UHNW household with specific protective requirements, the parents may want additional coordination.

That could involve confirming the responsible adult, transportation arrangements and expected return time.

It does not automatically mean placing a security officer inside another family’s residence.

Protection should be proportionate.

The family should retain a normal social life whenever circumstances reasonably permit.

Emergency rally points and reunification procedures

A school run plan should address what happens when the normal pickup arrangement becomes unavailable.

Los Angeles schools can experience disruptions involving traffic accidents, medical incidents, power failures, wildfires or other emergencies.

The child may not be released through the normal entrance.

The school may activate its emergency procedures.

Parents may receive instructions to use a designated reunification location.

Private security should follow those instructions.

I would not want a protection agent attempting to bypass a school’s emergency release process simply because the family employs private security.

That could interfere with student accountability and emergency operations.

The family should identify alternative arrangements in advance

For a household with several children attending different schools, I want a realistic communication plan.

If the normal driver cannot reach the school, who becomes responsible?

Does the school have the correct emergency contacts?

Can another authorized adult collect the child?

How is that change communicated?

Does residential security know whether the child has arrived home?

Those procedures need to account for the possibility that mobile communications are disrupted.

A family should not depend on a single group chat as its entire emergency plan.

I also want the adults to understand that an emergency rally point is not necessarily the same location every time.

If the school directs families to another location, the protection team should coordinate with that established process.

Virtual kidnapping scams require calm verification

The FBI’s December 2025 warning about manipulated proof-of-life photographs raises another issue relevant to wealthy families.

What happens when someone contacts a parent claiming that a child has been kidnapped?

A genuine threat requires immediate attention.

But a criminal may also be attempting to create panic through fabricated information.

According to the FBI, virtual kidnapping scammers may use manipulated photographs, threats of violence and demands for immediate payment to pressure victims before they can verify the situation.

The agency recommends attempting to contact the supposedly kidnapped person and establishing a family verification code word.

For a UHNW family, I would establish a verification procedure before such an incident occurs.

Parents should know how to contact the school directly.

The family should have reliable contact information for the driver, nanny and protection team.

And the responsible adults should understand how to escalate a credible emergency.

A secret family verification phrase can be useful, but it should not become the only way to assess a threat.

The most important point is not allowing a threatening caller to become the sole source of information.

If there is reason to believe a child may actually be in danger, emergency services should be contacted immediately.

I would not attempt to manage a credible kidnapping threat as an ordinary household security problem.

Communication should be controlled, not excessive

For a family with children attending several schools, communication can quickly become overwhelming.

Parents.

Nannies.

Drivers.

Assistants.

Estate managers.

Residential security.

Executive protection.

Teachers.

Coaches.

If every person receives every update, important information can become lost.

I prefer defined communication responsibilities.

The driver confirms transportation milestones to the person responsible for coordinating the movement.

The nanny communicates childcare changes.

Residential security receives the arrival information it needs.

The parents receive the updates they have requested.

The executive protection team receives operational information relevant to its assignment.

Sensitive information should not be distributed unnecessarily.

A child’s school location, daily schedule and movements should be treated as confidential family information.

That also means security reports should not become informal social conversations.

I want records to be accurate, access-controlled and limited to legitimate operational purposes.

The most effective child protection is often barely noticeable

One of my priorities in this type of work is maintaining the child’s normal experience.

If the security team is doing its job, the child should not spend the school day thinking about security.

They should be thinking about friends, classes, sports and whatever else matters to children at that age.

The protection program should support that.

Not dominate it.

There will be families whose circumstances require a visible security presence.

There will also be families where discreet coordination between drivers, parents, schools and residential security provides the appropriate level of protection.

Those decisions should follow a documented assessment rather than assumptions about wealth or public visibility.

For UHNW families in Los Angeles, I believe school run security works best when the adults understand their responsibilities, the school remains an active partner and the child is allowed to experience an ordinary childhood.

That is the balance I would aim for.

School events require a different approach from daily transportation

A school run is relatively structured.

The family knows when the child needs to arrive.

The school has an established drop-off process.

The driver knows where to go.

But school events are different.

Graduations.

Performances.

Athletic competitions.

Parent meetings.

Fundraisers.

Birthday celebrations.

A private school may welcome hundreds of parents and guests to an event, including people who do not ordinarily visit the campus.

For a high-profile family, that changes the environment.

I would not automatically consider a school event dangerous.

But I would evaluate whether the existing protective arrangements still make sense.

The parent may be attending with the child.

There may be photographers.

Other families may recognize the principal.

People may gather around the entrances.

And the protection team may have less control over the environment than it does during a normal school pickup.

Security should coordinate with the school before an event

If a family requires a protection agent at a school function, I want that arrangement discussed with the school’s administration beforehand.

Where can the agent remain?

What access is permitted?

Are there restrictions on private security personnel?

How does the school handle emergencies?

Who is the designated school contact?

What happens if the family needs to leave unexpectedly?

These conversations should happen discreetly.

I do not want a protection agent arriving at a school and demanding special access or attempting to establish procedures without permission.

Private security personnel are guests on someone else’s property.

That distinction matters.

For most school functions, the family’s protection can remain low-profile.

The agent does not need to stand beside the child during a performance.

The parent does not necessarily need someone following them across the auditorium.

The level of coverage should reflect the actual circumstances.

Traveling with children creates another set of responsibilities

The school run may be a daily movement, but many UHNW families also travel extensively.

Children may accompany their parents on business trips.

Families may divide their time between several residences.

School holidays may involve domestic or international travel.

A protection program needs to account for those changes without treating every vacation as a major security operation.

The principles remain similar.

Who is responsible for the child?

Who handles transportation?

Who knows the travel arrangements?

Who communicates changes?

What happens if the family becomes separated?

And what procedures exist if a scheduled connection or transfer fails?

For younger children, maintaining continuity with a familiar responsible adult can be especially important.

A protection agent who understands security but has never interacted with the child may not be the right person to supervise the child independently.

The roles should be established before departure.

Airport transfers and private aviation

Families using private aviation may have more control over certain aspects of their travel.

But a private terminal does not eliminate the need for coordination.

The family still moves between vehicles, terminals and aircraft.

Children still need supervision.

Luggage and personal belongings need to be accounted for.

And the adults responsible for transportation should understand when custody of the child transfers between them.

If a nanny accompanies the family, I want the nanny focused on childcare.

If a security driver is operating the vehicle, I want the driver focused on transportation.

If an executive protection agent is assigned, I want the agent managing the protective aspects of the movement.

The same person may perform multiple responsibilities in some circumstances.

But that should be an intentional decision, not an assumption.

California child passenger safety rules belong in the transportation plan

One issue I would never overlook during school transportation is proper passenger restraint.

A luxury vehicle does not automatically make a child safer.

Neither does an experienced driver.

The child needs to be transported using an appropriate restraint system.

Under California’s 2026 requirements, children younger than eight generally must be secured in an appropriate child passenger restraint system in the rear seat, subject to statutory exceptions. Children under two generally require a rear-facing restraint unless they meet specified size thresholds.

Children aged eight through fifteen must be properly secured in an appropriate restraint or safety belt.

Justia Law

+1

For a household with several children, I would verify that every vehicle used for transportation has the correct equipment.

That includes replacement vehicles.

If the primary SUV is unavailable, the family should not discover at 7:30 in the morning that the substitute vehicle cannot properly accommodate the children.

California changes its booster-seat requirements in 2027

There is also a relevant upcoming change.

California Assembly Bill 435, enacted in 2025, revises certain child passenger restraint requirements beginning January 1, 2027.

The revised law incorporates a five-step seat-belt fit assessment when determining whether a child can be properly restrained by an adult safety belt.

Justia Law

For a family office managing transportation, that is the type of regulatory change worth reviewing before it takes effect.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also emphasizes that children should remain in an appropriate booster seat until an adult seat belt fits properly.

NHTSA Seat Belt Safety Guidance.

This may not sound like executive protection.

But preventing a child from being injured in a vehicle is a fundamental part of keeping that child safe.

I would prioritize that over unnecessary security equipment.

Family privacy should extend to schools and household technology

We already discussed social-media exposure.

I would also evaluate the household’s digital arrangements.

Many families use applications for school communications, transportation coordination, location sharing and activity scheduling.

Those tools can be convenient.

But convenience should not mean unlimited access to information about a child.

Who can see the child’s location?

Which household employees have access?

Do former employees still have credentials?

Are school accounts shared among multiple adults?

Does an assistant have access to information that is no longer necessary for their role?

Those are reasonable questions.

In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, strengthening requirements concerning the collection, use and disclosure of children’s personal information, including additional protections relating to certain third-party advertising practices.

Federal Trade Commission

That federal rule concerns covered online services rather than establishing a general security policy for private households.

Nevertheless, it reinforces how seriously information about children should be treated.

For a UHNW family, I would review unnecessary sharing and access permissions.

I would not automatically recommend tracking every movement of a teenager.

Protection needs to be balanced with age, privacy, parental expectations and legitimate operational requirements.

The school run needs a backup plan for ordinary disruptions

Not every problem is a security threat.

In fact, many situations that test a protection program are completely ordinary.

A vehicle will not start.

A driver becomes ill.

A child misses the normal pickup time.

A school closes unexpectedly.

Heavy traffic delays arrival.

A parent changes the afternoon schedule.

These situations should not create confusion across the entire household.

I want a practical backup arrangement.

A replacement driver should understand the school procedures.

The replacement vehicle should be appropriate for the children.

The school should have accurate authorization information.

The nanny should know whom to contact.

And the family should understand how schedule changes are confirmed.

A backup driver should not automatically receive every household credential

A replacement employee may require temporary access to the property.

That does not necessarily justify permanent gate codes, unrestricted access to family schedules or access to unrelated household systems.

I would apply the same principle used in residential security.

Provide the access required for the assignment.

Remove it when the assignment ends.

For families employing multiple domestic staff members, this is another reason to coordinate transportation planning with proper Household Staff Vetting for UHNW Families.

How I would assess whether a family needs dedicated school run protection

I would not recommend a full-time children security detail simply because a family is wealthy.

Wealth alone does not establish the need for that level of protection.

I would begin with the family’s circumstances.

Is the principal publicly recognizable?

Are the children publicly associated with the family?

Has the household received credible threats?

Are there relevant custody or access restrictions that the school must observe?

How old are the children?

Does the family already employ a security driver?

Are residential security personnel available?

Does the child require additional supervision?

And how well does the school’s existing arrival and release process function?

I would also speak with the parents about their expectations.

Some parents want very discreet protection.

Others may have specific concerns that require closer coverage.

The family’s preferences matter, but the proposed measures still need to be practical and appropriate.

The result may not involve adding another security officer

For one family, the assessment may identify that a professional driver, clear pickup procedures and better communication are sufficient.

For another, a dedicated protection agent may be appropriate during particular movements.

A family with a credible threat may require a more comprehensive arrangement.

I would rather identify the actual requirement than automatically assign personnel.

A security program should be capable of explaining why every significant measure is necessary.

Our broader article on Close Protection for UHNW Families in Los Angeles examines how those decisions fit into the overall family protection program.

Common mistakes I would want to avoid

During a school run security assessment, I would pay particular attention to assumptions that can create unnecessary weaknesses.

Assuming a familiar person is authorized. A driver or household employee should not retain pickup authority simply because school staff recognize them.

Giving too many people access to the schedule. Not every household employee needs detailed information about the children’s movements.

Choosing an unsuitable vehicle. Passenger safety, appropriate restraints and reliable transportation are more important than appearance.

Failing to coordinate with school personnel. Private security cannot replace the school’s responsibility for supervising and releasing students.

Making the protection too visible. An unnecessarily intrusive detail can disrupt the child’s social experience without producing a corresponding security benefit.

Forgetting substitute personnel. An otherwise effective plan may fail when the normal driver or nanny is unavailable.

Treating a child like an adult principal. Children need age-appropriate instructions and adults who understand their developmental needs.

Most of these weaknesses can be addressed through planning, communication and clear responsibilities.

They do not necessarily require additional equipment or staffing.

My approach to protecting children without changing their childhood

For me, the objective is straightforward.

A child should be able to attend school, play sports, visit friends and participate in normal family life.

The protection program should support that.

I want the adults to handle the planning.

I want the driver to transport the child safely.

I want the nanny to focus on childcare.

I want the school to remain responsible for its established procedures.

And when an executive protection agent is required, I want that person to understand the difference between discreet protection and unnecessary interference.

The child should not have to think about the family’s security arrangements every morning.

A well-designed program allows the child to live normally while responsible adults maintain appropriate safeguards.

That is what I would work toward.

Frequently asked questions

Does a UHNW child need a bodyguard to attend school in Los Angeles?

Not automatically.

I would assess the family’s exposure, any credible threats, the child’s age, transportation arrangements and the school’s existing security procedures.

Many families may be adequately served by a reliable driver, appropriate childcare arrangements and well-managed pickup authorization.

Other families may have circumstances that justify dedicated executive protection.

The decision should follow the actual risk and operational requirements, not simply the family’s financial status.

Can a private security agent accompany a child onto school property?

That depends on the school’s policies and the arrangement established with its administration.

A family employing private protection does not automatically give the agent unrestricted access to a campus.

I would coordinate with the school in advance, clarify the agent’s responsibilities and establish where the person is permitted to remain.

The objective is cooperation.

A protection agent should never interfere with the school’s normal operation or emergency procedures.

What is the difference between a security driver and a nanny who drives?

A nanny’s primary role is childcare.

A security driver’s primary role is safe transportation with additional protective responsibilities appropriate to the assignment.

Some individuals may have training and experience in both roles.

But I would not assume that someone is qualified to perform executive protection simply because they have worked for a wealthy family.

Nor would I assume that a professional protector has the childcare experience required to supervise young children.

The responsibilities should be matched to the person’s qualifications.

How can parents reduce the risk of kidnapping scams involving their children?

I would start by limiting unnecessary public exposure of family information and establishing reliable communication procedures.

In December 2025, the FBI specifically warned that criminals were using manipulated photographs from public sources to support fraudulent kidnapping claims.

The agency recommends establishing a family verification code word and attempting to contact the supposedly kidnapped person directly before considering a ransom demand.

Families should also maintain direct contact information for schools, drivers and responsible caregivers.

If there is a credible indication that a child is actually missing or in danger, law enforcement should be contacted immediately.

Should school run security remain discreet?

In most circumstances, yes.

I believe children benefit from being able to participate in normal school life without unnecessary attention.

A discreet security program may involve coordination, careful transportation planning and clear procedures rather than an obvious protective presence.

There may be circumstances where visible personnel are appropriate.

But visibility should be a deliberate decision based on an identified requirement.

It should not be used simply to demonstrate that the family employs security.

Sources

• LAPD, Back to school safety awareness
• FBI, Virtual kidnapping for ransom scams alert 2025
• California Department of Education document
• NHTSA, Seat belts

Closing thought

For UHNW families in Los Angeles, protecting children is not about surrounding them with security officers.

It is about responsibility.

Knowing who is driving.

Knowing who is authorized to collect them.

Knowing what happens when plans change.

Knowing how the school communicates during an emergency.

And making sure the people responsible for the children understand their roles.

The adults should carry the responsibility for security.

The children should be allowed to be children.

That is the balance I believe a professional family protection program should achieve.

---

About Michael Braun

Michael Braun is a former Special Unit Operator, former Manager at Gavin de Becker & Associates, and Founder & CEO of MSB Protection, an executive protection and residential security firm serving high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth clients.

Braun has built his career at the intersection of specialized protective operations, executive protection, residential security, protective intelligence, and security risk management. His experience spans special-unit operations, leadership within Gavin de Becker & Associates, and the development and oversight of private protection programs within demanding UHNW environments.

He has been recognized by The Top 100 Magazine as a leading CEO in the private security field and is the subject of an upcoming Marquis Who’s Who feature highlighting his leadership and contributions to the profession.

Today, Braun is recognized for his work in executive protection, UHNW estate security, residential protection, protective intelligence, adversarial security assessments, and security auditing throughout Beverly Hills and Southern California.

His work focuses on moving private security beyond simply “providing a body” and toward intelligence-led, risk-based protection programs designed to identify vulnerabilities before an adversary can exploit them.

---

Looking for Executive Protection or Residential Security Services?

If you are a high-net-worth or ultra-high-net-worth individual, family office, estate manager, chief of staff, or executive in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Malibu or Southern California, MSB Protection provides executive protection, residential security, 24/7 protection, protective intelligence, medical-readiness planning, and security risk management.

We evaluate the complete security environment, from threat exposure and residential vulnerabilities to personnel, technology, procedures, protective intelligence, and emergency response, and build a program around the risks that actually exist.

Contact us for a confidential consultation or message us at +1 (805) 285-2807.