If A Girl Gets Pregnant On Set Could The Industry have To Pay Child Support

A drunken asshat asked that question via twitter,  I am starting to understand twitter, I was right in that it attracts these people because the depth of their intelligence is about 140 characters. But I digress.

It did pose an interesting question though, that question being could the male talent be forced to pay child support.  The answer might surprise you.

I called an attorney friend and offered lunch.  She knows that the only time I do this is when I want to pick her brain for free but she takes pity on my financial status and agrees.  She specializes in Family law.

Over sandwiches at Panera Bread I pop the question.

I am shooting a couple who prior to today never met each other.  They are performing a boy girl and they don’t want to use a condom.  She is not on birth control but doesn’t say that.

Now a couple months go by and she finds out that she is pregnant, she has no intention of terminating the pregnancy and through paternal DNA testing down the road it is proved that he IS the father.

Can she sue him for child support?

The attorney seems surprised I would even ask, and unlike most legal questions this one has a short answer….Yes.  Open and shut, cut and dry he will pay child support.

I ask what about in California?   Again the answer is a terse Yes.

OK I say, lets complicate the matter, what if I as the producer do not allow them to use a condom, even though they wanted to, could I be sued for child support.  She contemplates this one a bit, before answering, well anyone can sue anyone, but this would be an interesting case.  You wouldn’t be liable for child support but you could be sued for damages by both parties, and they would win I think.  She notes that we are diverting from her area of legal expertise.

She then asks me if I knocked up one of my actresses…I laughed and pointed out that I require condoms these days.  Smart move, she says.

To my knowledge no actress has sued an actor for child support but I do know of at least a few cases where they got pregnant on set and chose to keep the child.  I know of MANY more where they got an abortion.  It does give one pause, if you are a male performer.

12 Replies to “If A Girl Gets Pregnant On Set Could The Industry have To Pay Child Support”

  1. AmDazed

    Great Post Mike!

    So I wonder… What if the contract says that the performer is responsible for any pregnancy that may occur and waves all claims against all other performers and producers involved in the shoots including pregnancy and or termination expenses, child support, and all possible damages resulting from pregnancy?

    Also, with prop 60, what is the limit on types for STD/I liability for producers? I’m assuming under prop 60 you could sue for any STI, even the ones we don’t test for, like herpes II(where a condom only reduces risk of transmission by 50%), as well as many other STD/I’s we rarely pay attention too. I bring this up because I wonder if in other states without a prop 60 type rule if a producer can also add a similar clause to the contract regarding STI’s and cancel their liability.

  2. herculestheliger

    Interesting. It’s a bigger question beyond porn, and one that courts have addressed in some situations. The obvious situation for non-porners is sperm donors who have contractually waived any claims to parenthood. I’ll leave it to all of you to find the relevant cases. Doesn’t always work out so well for the donor.

    Mike’s question is really interesting on a higher level, though. The male performer may owe child support regardless of the situation. Could that liability extend or pass on to the producer if the producer refuses allow talent to use condoms? Does it even matter if condoms are provided/required, since paternal liability for child support still be applicable regardless of waivers in contracts?

    There aren’t too many workplaces that potentially expose workers to pregnancy. Interesting!

  3. SabrinaDeep

    With all due respect, this is a cheap shot to push for condoms, Mike. Keep also in mind that if a girl wants to get pregnant, a condom is the least of her problems. If you are trying to say that condoms would avoid, among others, sues for child support I have to believe that you are running out of arguments. I’ll give you one: shut porn in particular and sex in general down and we solve STDs contagious, child support sues and even world over-population all at once. I keep not hearing a word about education, professionalism and code of conduct with related penalties for those who breech it. Instead I should feel victorious and safe if I was forced to fuck a diseased partner with a condom. I’m really losing faith. It’s like living nearby a leaking nuclear reactor and discussing which outfit protects you the most from radiations, instead of fixing the fucking leak.

  4. jilted

    Back in the day there was a clinic at 427 Arden St. in Glendale Ca. It was the ‘go to’ place for girls in the industry who got pregnant. It happened quite more often than you think. How do I know this, I was also the lab rep for this clinic, we did all of the POC(product of conception) biopsies. It was the worst unkept secret in the industry.

  5. MikeSouth

    Sabrina I expect something is lost in the translation its not a push for condoms it is an anecdotal “what if” . It is also an interesting legal question, As far as being a reason to choose to use condoms or not, as you pointed out that would be VERY low on the list….Not everything is about condoms or not.

    Truth is you have a system that works well for you and as far as I am concerned thats the right thing for you. Many others who have websites and such could learn from you and I don’t think prop 60 is in any way an answer for them and the way prop 60 is written I don’t see it being a problem for them, despite what The FSC would have you believe it doesn’t give an average citizen the blanket right to sue performers and the reward IF the citizen should attempt to undertake such a suit is peanuts.

    For a citizen to sue someone has to complain to OSHA, OSHA has to fail to investigate that complaint, then the citizen can sue, then it goes before a judge/Jury and IF the defendant is found guilty and the judge levies a fine the suer can claim 25% of that fine.

    The idea that it jeopardizes the performers private info is also hogwash only producers can be sued, if the performer is also the producer and the performers partner complains and OSHA doesnt investigate (as they are required by law to do) and the complainant files suit the name and address are already public info in the form of the 2257 compliance statement. If the persons info isnt readily available the person suing doesn’t have any special means to discover that info.

    The real problem with Prop 60 is the sheer amount of bullshit that is being said about it….

    The real fact of the matter is that win lose or draw Prop 60 is going to have little effect on the long term outcome. Producers are going to have to shoulder the liability for STDs if they dont require condoms and they do require tests. producers are going to have to maintain a safe workplace and the only defense against civil liability is going to be the condom requirement, and even that is pretty thin in a civil lawsuit.

  6. LurkingReader

    IMO producer/performers worried about getting sued if prop 60 passes ought to be more concerned with disgruntled co-workers and industry enemies than California citizens.

  7. mharris127

    I have asked a similar question myself. My question is since the pregnancy happened on set would Workman’s Comp (in California’s case State Fund) be responsible for the child support? My guess is it would but I bet they fight it for years before paying. It happened on set, if an asshole were perforated or a dick broken on set making State Fund pay would be a slam dunk case (actually my money would be on State Fund not even fighting payment for a broken dick or perforated asshole). My next question is whether State Fund could be forced to pay for an abortion (otherwise known as baby murder in more enlightened states) if the female talent requested it. You or I would probably have to fly to California and talk to a Workman’s Comp attorney to answer these anywhere near accurately.

  8. mharris127

    Why the fuck would they need a proof of conception biopsy? The fucking dead baby is all the proof you need of conception, there has been only one baby born without sperm to egg conception taking place first and that was over 2,000 years ago — I don’t expect an immaculate conception to take place ever again!

  9. mystiq22

    in porno when condoms aren’t used for DP and actual sex, it makes me wonder what happens when the girl gets pregnant. it’s also an issue of paternity because the girl often does sex with no condoms with multiple dudes especially with gangbangs. it looks like a hot mess.

  10. mharris127

    My guess is that if Ms. Porn Chickie applies for governmental financial assistance every being with a dick that she has fucked within 90 days (either way if applicable) of the estimated conception date would be court ordered to take a DNA test — and the Child Support Office will view every porno scene she fucked in that could possibly be within 90 days of the estimated conception date to make sure no porno dick is missed. If no tested fuckee is the sperm donor than the chickie goes to prison/nightly anal- and oral-only gangbang fest by 25 horny guards for ten to life after being convicted of lying/withholding information on her Department of Social Services application, the baby is put up for adoption to a decent home and no one ends up paying child support. If there is an unlucky son of a bitch that tests prove with 99.99999999999999% certainty that he is the father than he either takes care of the kid himself or gets assessed child support and ends up fighting State Fund for reimbursement.

    I wonder if the government would have Maury do the testing — special two hour episode of “Who’s The Daddy” with 92 men tested, special inside look at porn filming and the chickie will fuck Maury at the end. 🙂

  11. jilted

    It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
    Workers comp, lol, pregnancy is not an injury.

  12. mharris127

    In this case we don’t know if it would be considered an injury or not. We won’t unless and until a court rules on this issue. I would guess that since it is a medical issue and it happened as a result of employment that a Workman’s Comp insurer (in CA that likely would be State Fund) would be required to pay up. We’ll have to disagree on that one.