The Hows and Whys of Toddler to Trainwreck
With the release of the true crime docu-series Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV, online debate has sparked about the safety of child actors and the repercussions — or lack thereof — their abusers face.
This, however, is not the first of the discussions surrounding this topic. But the conundrum of whether there should be child stars isn’t nearly as important as how the industry and the public should protect the privacy of said actors.
The debate over the ethical nature of employing children is an old topic that resurfaces practically every year, especially as more and more former child stars open up about their, (usually tumultuous) experiences within the entertainment industry. These former stars,a majority of whom identify as female,have opened up about the dark underbelly of Hollywood, with issues primarily being about the sexual and emotional abuse they were subjected to by adults, the financial exploitation between the stars and their parents, and the downfall that follows.
Although child entertainers have been around for a long time, it was not until the 20th century that child celebrities became a lucrative business. In the beginning, these actors had — presumably — a pretty sweet gig, especially since the common-law “infancy doctrine” was codified by California in 1872. This gave child stars the right to break contracts without facing any legal repercussions. However, this was eventually overturned in 1927 when Hollywood, which was operating under the studio system, became desperate for young talent.
Despite the now inescapable contracts binding child actors to studios, the newfound status of these young celebrities led to newfound problems, primarily the issue of children becoming the breadwinners of their families, as their careers allowed them to make more money than their parents. Because child actors are obviously still minors, the entirety of their earnings were turned over to their parents or legal guardians, many of whom often spent the money before the child came of age.
This did not change until the Coogan Act was enacted in 1939. Named after one of the most famous child actors at the time, Jackie Coogan,who sued his mother and stepfather after discovering that they had spent all of his income, leaving him financially destitute at 21 years-old.The law mandates that a trust fund must be created specifically for a child actor to place a portion of their earnings, which cannot be touched until the actor turns 18.
Even after the Coogan Act was established, there were many loopholes that left child actors financially vulnerable. Although, in theory, the trust fund portion could not be touched until the actor was of age, if the child’s parent or legal guardian employed themselves as their “manager” or “handler,” they would be able to access the money. A recent example of this was in 1995, the parents of Macaulay Culkin wasted the majority of his income in a custody battle for their children.
Thankfully, the Coogan Act was updated in 2000 to better protect the earnings of child stars. The update mandated that a minimum of 15 percent of gross income be saved. Furthermore, parents and guardians were no longer allowed to access the fund by any means, as it was now seen as the sole property of the minor. Unfortunately, the Act only pertains to California. New York has similar laws; 15 percent of child actors’ incomes are deposited into what are known as Child Performer Trust Accounts. Child actors in states other than California and New York are under no such protection.
Although parents no longer have access to the entirety of their child’s income thanks to the Coogan Act, there are still numerous examples of parents exploiting their children for financial support,to the point of the children themselves being the breadwinners of the family. A stark example of this is former Nickelodeon child actress Jennette McCurdy, who revealed in her New York Times bestselling memoir, I’m Glad My Mom Died, that her mother had pushed her into acting to financially support their large, struggling family. “She wanted this,” McCurdy wrote. “And I wanted her to have it. I wanted her to be happy. But now that I have it, I realize that she’s happy and I’m not. Her happiness came at the cost of mine. I feel robbed and exploited.” In making the child act as the breadwinner, parents place burdens on their children, mentally and emotionally manipulating them into believing that the entire wellbeing of the family is their responsibility.
Psychologist Shauna Springer, Ph.D., identifies two types of child-star parents and how they deal with the wealth and success of their child: “There are examples of parents who support their child’s dreams — who provide guidance and protection as their child rises to fame. These parents offer a stable, emotionally healthy environment. They want their talented child to succeed, but they don’t need their child to succeed.” Spring adds, “There are others who operate under the guise of support while living out their own desire for wealth or fame through their children.”
As of now, there are no rules or regulations in place to prevent parents or guardians from being completely financially dependent on their children.
Additionally, there is no legislation protecting the modern-day child star: the child influencer. These days, some of the highest-paid child personalities are young social media and reality TV superstars who self-publish (sometimes independently, and sometimes at the discretion of a parent or guardian) content on platforms such as YouTube and TikTok. This is thanks to brand partnerships, paid product endorsements, and lucrative ad revenue. However, the income of digital influencers, especially child influencers, is not protected by the digital equivalent of the Coogan Act due to the nebulous gray area that social media and reality TV exist in.
“Reality TV [and social media] is the Wild West,” Sally Greenberg, an executive director of the National Consumers League, told TODAY. “State and federal laws must be enhanced to ensure children are not exploited and abused. Work hours must be limited to ensure the child’s educational development isn’t impaired, and child participants must have a portion of family proceeds placed into a trust fund for their future needs.”
California lawmakers first attempted to recreate the Coogan Act in 2018 with a bill that attempted to add “social media advertising” to the definition of employment in child labor law. Under this bill — dubbed the “Kidfluencer” bill — minors working in the digital sphere would be required to obtain a work permit. The bill, although passed, was significantly diluted from the original proposal. It exempts young digital creators from obtaining work permits if their performance is unpaid and shorter than an hour.
Earlier this year, California legislators made another attempt to extend financial protections to minors earning money as influencers on social media. The bill would specifically cover anyone in the state earning more than $15,000 in a year from online photos or videos that include children in at least a third of the posted content within a one-month period. This means that anyone creating content that meets this threshold would be required to set aside the minor’s share of earnings in a trust.
While money issues are important, that does not solve the issue of how child stars are being treated in the industry. Quiet on Set dealt primarily with the sexual exploitation and abuse of popular late ’90s and early 2000s Nickelodeon child stars at the hands of showrunner Dan Schneider. Former child star Drake Bell came forth about his personal struggles, revealing his relationships and abuse with dialogue coach and sex offender Brian Peck.
This kind of abuse is not relegated to only Nickelodeon sets. In the 2023 two-part documentary Pretty Baby: Brooke Shields, the former child model opened up about becoming a lucrative commodity in the ’70s and ’80s. She particularly touched upon being overly sexualized and viewed as a teen sex symbol by the public. In an interview with NPR, Shields explained how the sexualized depictions of her impacted her ability to take on roles that did not portray her as an object of desire: “People were less interested because that wasn’t what was selling. And it was easier for them to just keep me in that, you know, more exotic, sexualized — because, you know, it had a direct value, and that value was monetary.”
The sexualization of child stars,especially female child stars,is not an issue of old. From Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen to Millie Bobby Brown, adult fans, most of whom are older men, have counted down the days until the girls’ 18th birthdays — a.k.a. when they became of legal age. Despite laws in place to protect minors from sexual advances, those laws only pertain to physical advances.
As celebrities and media outlets alike have transitioned to social media, so too have their legions of fans. Among those legions are the perverts, the stalkers, and the pedophiles hiding behind anonymous profile pictures. Aside from the ability to block and report accounts, there are very few regulations stopping adults from sexualizing child stars and sharing their lewd thoughts and AI-generated images online.
According to Forbes, eBay is riddled with thousands of AI-generated pornographic or sexually suggestive images of high-profile celebrities such as Jenna Ortega — a former child star turned successful adult actress. Despite eBay suspending the accounts of sellers on the site, it is still possible to generate and mass circulate AI images on other platforms, such as X and Reddit.
This intense and unwanted scrutiny, coupled with the pressures of being their families’ financial backer, has led many child stars down what former Disney Channel star Alyson Stoner calls the “Toddler to Trainwreck Pipeline.” As the name suggests, this Pipeline refers to the slow downfall of the former child star as they struggle to adapt to real life or transition into adulthood. This can result in legal troubles, mental health issues, substance abuse, eating disorders, etc. Two of the most notable victims of the Toddler to Trainwreck Pipeline are Britney Spears and Amanda Bynes, both of whom experienced lucrative careers as child and teen stars before undergoing highly publicized “meltdowns” caused by deteriorating mental health and substance abuse, thus resulting in the two women being placed in separate conservatorships.
As seen in Spears’ case, a conservatorship is not always the best way to solve the problem, especially since Spears’ father took complete control of her life. “With the conservatorship of a child star, there is potential for exploitation and abuse — especially when there is a vast fortune involved,” Springer said. “Appointing a conservator who is financially and emotionally stable, that has shown over time that he or she has their child’s best interests in mind, can decrease the risk of exploitation of a child star.”
One may wonder why their parents or family members did not step in before the incidents, while both women were showing signs of deterioration. Springer speculates that, “When a legal guardian comes to rely on the money that their child generates, they may be more likely to overlook or conceal struggles like substance abuse, mental health struggles, or eating disorders — for fear that seeking help might negatively impact the income they depend on.”
As a new generation of child stars appears in the world (McKenna Grace, Walker Scobell, the Stranger Things “kids,” etc.), it’s unclear exactly how a post-#MeToo Hollywood is operating when it comes to minors. But as they navigate young stardom — very publicly, may I add, via their various social media accounts, either private or public — it’s apparent that they have a leg up thanks to those who spoke up and came before them.
Photo courtesy of Nune Papikyan / Quaker Campus.
