In the post, I engage with the pioneering work of some Belgian asylum judges to include child-friendly language in eight of their judgments. Indeed, children and young people have a human right to understand legal decisions that affect them. This is true for all judgments and court rulings, but has a particular relevance for decisions in which the child’s views and opinions have not been followed. However, ensuring appellate asylum judgments are understandable for children seeking international protection is particularly challenging. My ongoing ethnographic fieldwork at the Belgian Council for Alien Law Litigation (RVV-CCE) reveals tensions on the level of communicating the – often child-unfriendly – outcome of appeal decisions to children, as well as in the lack of support for judges who wish to engage in (re)writing judgments for children. Addressing these tensions in a human rights-compliant manner highlights the simultaneous manifestation of vulnerability and agency, not only in the figure of the child seeking international protection, but also in the professional practice of asylum judges in developing their jurisprudence affecting children and young people.