A bill submitted to Congress by Democratic Representative Grace Meng seeks to set specific federal rules when children are employed as actors or models. This includes children who perform in TV commercials or in live theater. Under the bill, the protections would apply to all children under the age of 18. Currently, the only legal protections regarding employment that protect children are left to the states, where the rules can be as different as night from day.
California has some of the best protections for this group of employed children, which is good to know given the vast amount of money the state makes from its movie industry. It does seem odd that given the number of children who perform in everything from toilet paper ads to movies like The Revenant, there would be a stronger demand for labor restrictions and controls. Add to this, there does not seem to be a lot of immediate public support for the bill and the future passage of the bill is not clear.
There are a few parts of the bill where getting support can be seen as problematic. One is that the law requires 15 percent of the child’s earnings be placed into a trust account and remain untouched unless there is a demonstrated need to withdraw the money. The intent of this action is to prevent parents from absconding with the child’s earnings and only benefit themselves.
Two problems come to mind with this idea. First, what is the legal state of the child? Is the child a legal employee of the company? If this is true, then the parents would have no rights to the earnings of the child, which seems to be the intent for at least 15 percent of the child’s labor.
Second, the law seems to undermine the rights of the parents. A child cannot legally enter into a contract, so it is the parents who have to give permission for the child to be employed, and likely sign off on a number of conditions of employment that directly impact the child’s earnings.
There are stories of where parents unashamedly live off of their children’s employment, but those situations seem few and far between. The more common result of child actor financial mismanagement comes from the children themselves, be it drugs, crazy lifestyles, or imprudent investments. Some of the riches to rehab stories come only a short time after the child turns 18.
Another question is, why 15 percent? This sounds more like a tax than a well-thought out number. It actually seems like a money grab by the government when reading this part of the bill:
“no access to the trust account except in circumstances of financial hardship stipulated in the agreement with the financial institution providing the trust account, which stipulations shall be in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.”
So the financial institutions, which are regulated by the government, and the government (Secretary), will completely control access to the money.
One can only hope this is not a political tactic to undermine parental control and gain more control of money that is legally earned through talent and hard work. There is a need for a consistent legal framework to protect child actors and performers, but what should be the cost of such legislation?
Follow Us
