I feel like my child is being taken advantage of; help please

[HelpPlease?]

Oklahoma, US

Hello there, I need help with a case and would appreciate any advice or ideas that could help me out. To explain what's going on, briefly, I'll just start by saying that it involves a television show.

What are the legalities of talking about a child on a television show if not consented by the legal guardian? For example, if a person was planning on airing a 1-year-old on a TV show, supposedly covering the "journey" in reconnecting with their lost child, if not consented to by the legal guardian, can the show be put to broadcast? Let's say they're not even showing her filmed or airing her voice, but are planning on coming from a un-cited perspective and slanderous remarks in which involve saying the child was kept away, when in reality, she was not. Also, if they were attempting to air my court proceedings in addition to the program, would that be legal without my consent. Since she is vulnerable population and have not consulted me with the contents of the airing, could I sue if they air even her name and information? The show is to air the 22nd of this month and if I want to see that it doesn't, I need to act fast. Any responses would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.

 

[racer72]

Instead of generalities, give us the facts. The best anyone could do is give you "an example" that may or may not fit your exact situation.

 

[HelpPlease?]

A guy abandoned his 'child.' He doesn't try to have anything to do with said child for 8 months. He is a performer, he is a "show" kind of guy. Anyway, a MTV show comes up with "I'm looking for my child" episode, and he signs up. He is accepted and cameras come out. The first day any cameras come out is the first day he tries to make any contact.

The legal guardian and him go to court, the show is briefly discussed due to brisk court, and he awarded unsupervised visitation and the only thing said about the show is that he is not to commercial exploit the child. The show, then, has a date of its official airing.

He wasn't given any consent by the legal guardian about the show. He says that he's not using her image and voice, but will use her name. Could anything be done to cancel the show?

Could he be sued since she is vulnerable population (she's 1-year-old) and a minor, and is using her name and information? Also, could he sued if he airs any legal proceedings between he and the mother (the legal guardian.)
And could he be sued for the slanderous, un-cited remarks to be made against the legal guardian's parenting, such as keeping the child away. We're planning on contacting the company behind the show, but we must first find out what we should put on the letter. We have to act fast.

 

[quincy]

You need to contact an attorney in your area NOW.

This forum is not going to give you what you will need in order to prevent the airing of the show on the 22nd, and the importance of protecting the child requires immediate action be taken if you wish to avoid having any episode featuring the child shown on tv. You do not want to deal with this matter after-the-fact, when the harm has already been done, but rather BEFORE any harm is done to the child.

This means that you SHOULD be providing all of the facts of your situation to an attorney in your area and you should NOT waste time providing it to members of a free advice forum, because our best advice can only be for you to contact an attorney in your area.

Good luck.

 

[gogo589]

There may be several people on this site that could give you some great advice, but it sounds like you really need to sit down with a lawyer. Consultations are usually free. Good luck.

 

[quincy]

Gogo589, I did not mean to imply by my post that HelpPlease could not get good advice on this site. This site has some excellent advisors, including Racer, and if my post was interpreted otherwise, I apologize.

There is an urgency involved here, however, with a 22nd air date for the tv program. HelpPlease will need the court to issue an injunction if she hopes to keep the episode featuring her child off the air. No matter how much information she provides to us here, it will not change the fact that she needs an attorney in her area to review it all, and fast.

Because the court heard from both parties earlier, when the child's father was granted visitation and when the judge gave a brief warning about commercial exploitation, HelpPlease needs to make a quick return trip to this court with an attorney. It will be necessary to impress upon the court the need for an injunction to prevent the program from airing.

The court can prohibit the airing of the episode until it has had the chance to review it. Airing a program like the one described by HelpPlease could very well be seen by the court as commercial exploitation of the young child.

Although HelpPlease may have reason to sue the child's father or the network if the program does air on tv, that is not what needs to be concentrated on if the main concern is protecting the child. What needs to be concentrated on is keeping the program from airing until it can be reviewed for content.

If HelpPlease fails to act soon, it will be too late to keep the program from airing. In that case, and if the child winds up being featured on the program, then HelpPlease can come back to FreeAdvice and the forum members can advise away. The urgency is gone. But any lawsuits that may be available to HelpPlease at that point will do nothing to remedy harm already caused the child.

Again, my apologies if my earlier post was read in a way I did not intend.

 

[ecmst12]

Referring to yourself as "legal guardian" when in fact you are the parent is very confusing.

 

[cbg]

I can't help wondering about prior restraint?

 

[quincy]

I agree, cbg, that prior restraint could be an issue - and it would no doubt be the primary focus of any argument brought by the network in fighting against an injunction.

But the central argument for HelpPlease, and hopefully well-tailored by her attorney to stifle a prior restraint argument, would have as its focus the permissions required in order to broadcast the show. The focus would have to remain less on the content itself, so the court does not see itself as editor or censor, and more on the rights of the parent to protect her child from exploitation.

The need for permission from the child's legal guardian, to use the child on the program in any manner, would be the reason the court could issue an injunction prohibiting the airing of the program. At the very least, the injunction could be a temporary one until there is a review of the content.

If the episode is seen to exploit the young child, the mother can withhold her permission. The network would have to think long and hard before airing a program without the necessary permissions. It is a legal risk many will not take.

With the proliferation of television reality shows that have as their subjects young children (ie. The Baby Borrowers and Kid Nation), there has been a lot of discussion about the exploitation of these children. Many advertisers, in fact, have withdrawn their ads from such shows over the exploitation aspect.

However, the difference between these shows and the problem HelpPlease has outlined here is that, in order for the children to appear on The Baby Borrowers or Kid Nation, or any of the other similar shows various networks are producing, the parents or legal guardians of these children have had to give their permission before their children can appear. The permission documents (legal agreements) are often the size of a short novel, and they are designed to protect the network from any legal issues that may arise from the filming and broadcasting of the shows.

An injunction based on the content of the episode alone could be a hard sell, as it would go against a litany of Supreme Court decisions and the First Amendment protections of free expression without prior restraint. Any restriction on speech would have to be so narrowly tailored that it is not seen as editorial control by the government, and most courts would be reluctant to order such restrictions.

Certainly to me prior restraint of speech is anathema. But I believe here, based on the facts as presented, an injunction could be warranted so the court can review the content and ensure that the mother is given the opportunity to view it and withhold her support for the airing of a program that could be detrimental to her child. Without her permission, the network would be taking a legal gamble by airing the episode.

 

[Zigner]

He says that he's not using her image and voice, but will use her name.

The OP was clear. The CHILD will not appear (visually or audibly). The FATHER of the child is merely using his child's name. I really don't see any court issuing injunctive relief for that.

 

[quincy]

The child does not have to appear on the show to be identifiable by others and to suffer harm as a result. If the father is using his child to promote himself and whatever story it is he is telling, it could still be seen as a commercial exploitation of the child.

While you may be right, Zig, that the court will not issue an injunction, and HelpPlease may be limited to taking legal action against the father or the network after the episode airs, an injunction is HelpPlease's ONLY option at this point, if she hopes to prevent the show from airing. Although she probably does not have a better than even shot (or less) at preventing the eventual airing of the program, I believe it is a shot worth her taking.

I should admit to my bias here. I think the reality shows that have young children as their focus are horrible - and I think that parents who allow their children to appear on such shows are even worse. Even without this bias, however, my advice to HelpPlease would remain the same.