Children as Minority Shareholders

Governance Lessons from Fatherhood and Venture Capital

Dear Subscribers,

I write not only as a father, but as someone whose professional life is rooted in venture capital a discipline fundamentally concerned with stewardship, governance, and long-term value creation under conditions of uncertainty. The same principles that guide responsible investing apply, with even greater moral weight, to parenthood.

The systems we tolerate are the outcomes we compound.

In venture capital, no serious investor would tolerate a governance structure where a single stakeholder unilaterally overrides agreed decision rights, suppresses dissenting views, or reallocates authority without consent. We recognize such behavior not as leadership, but as risk—systemic, compounding, and ultimately value-destructive. Yet in family systems, particularly in co-parenting, similar dynamics are too often normalized.

My commitment to my children, mirrors my commitment to sound governance: decisions must be made transparently, authority must be shared as agreed, and all fiduciaries—parents included—must act in the best long-term interest of those they serve. Children, like minority shareholders with no immediate voice, depend entirely on the integrity of the governance framework around them.

In VC, we speak often about alignment. Misalignment between founders, boards, and investors rarely ends well. In co-parenting, asymmetrical decision-making creates the same outcome: erosion of trust, distorted incentives, and long-term harm to the system—in this case, the emotional and developmental environment of a child. Silence in the face of misalignment is not neutrality; it is acquiescence to bad governance.

Active fatherhood, to me, is analogous to active ownership. It is not symbolic. It requires engagement, informed consent, and the willingness to challenge decisions that deviate from agreed principles. Just as responsible investors do not outsource fiduciary duty, responsible parents do not relinquish their role under social or cultural pressure.

Fiduciary Duty Doesn’t End at the Cap Table

The question, then, is one we ask constantly in venture capital and must also ask in family life: do we optimize for short-term convenience, or for durable, long-term outcomes? Do we tolerate governance shortcuts because confrontation is uncomfortable, or do we intervene early, knowing that compounding effects favor those who act with discipline and courage?

I choose the latter. Not out of conflict, but out of conviction. The same reason I push for transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership in companies is the reason I insist on them in parenting: because systems shape outcomes, and children live with the consequences far longer than adults do.

The legacy we leave our children is not only emotional it is structural. It is the model of decision-making, accountability, and justice they will internalize and later replicate. As in venture capital, the real work is not avoiding risk, but governing it responsibly.

With enduring resolve,

Bernardt