Octomom Nadya Suleman, Gloria Allred | 05/05/2009 11:05 am

Celeb Lawyer Gloria Allred Sues Octomom for Allegedly Using Babies as Cash Cows

Allred says babies are due financial compensation as ‘child actors’ under California law.

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Image via In Touch

Celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred wants Octomom Nadya Suleman to shape up and stop "exploiting" her children.

Allred has filed a petition in Orange County, CA, claiming that Suleman has chosen to "commercially exploit" her eight newborns and likely will continue to do so, according to The Daily News. Allred wants the babies to have a court-appointed guardian and apparently a theatrical agent to make sure the newborns get their due. Allred’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of ex-child star Paul Peterson, who runs a company that protects the rights of child actors. TMZ says Allred also sent a letter to the California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement to investigate whether or not OctoMom has violated laws set up to protect "child performers."

"She can sell pictures. She is the custodial parent. But the point is, in California, we have protection for child actors and these are child actors and entertainers even though they are babies," Allred said Tuesday morning on MSNBC. "If their images are in fact being sold under contract for any medium whatsoever, the law is very protective of their earnings."

California law says once the kids reach the age of 18, they can access those earnings.

Asked whether she’s worried about the welfare of the children, Allred said: "Absolutely we’re worried about the safety," but she’s only seeking guardian over the estate of the children.

Suleman responded to Allred’s lawsuit on RadarOnline, saying: "I feel like as though many, many, many, many people in this society are trying to distract me from taking care of my babies. And I’m gonna continue to live in my baby bubble with my kids. And whoever wants a piece of me or the babies, keep on trying. That’s all I have to say."

122 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Gloria Allred. I’m not altgether sure why she feels she has to get involved with this type of thing (ok, I do… PUBLICITY!) but there are times when she does indeed make sense.

This is one of them. These babies have been exploited from the time they were conceived. They are now "child stars". Child stars are protected under the law from being eploited by their parents. Therefore, it makes sense to have most of their earnings set aside in trust for them once they turn 18.

Heaven knows, they’ll need it. Most of them will have ongoing health issues for the rest of their lives.

I agree with you on this one, G-L-O-R-I-A!

By nanchan u on 05/05/2009 11:29 am

e-mail alert

"I agree with you on this one"

Me too. It should be interesting to see how things play out, when she benefits significantly less from her exploitation. Hmm, hmm, hmm…

By Rachel F on 05/05/2009 12:18 pm

e-mail alert

Why don’t you explain exactly jhow these babies have been "exploited?" I think Gloria Allred needs to be disbarred for this latest antic. A license to practice law is not a license to harass and harm people. Perhaps a wise judge will sort her out and shut her up, hopefully for good.

By roberta wickham on 05/05/2009 12:54 pm

e-mail alert

Well, I disagree with you, but please explain to me, how have these babies NOT been exploited? Their mother, who is single, and already has more children than she can support on her own, goes out and gets artificially inseminated. She has eight babies… not thinking of their well being or physical health. She has them on national TV less than 2 weeks after they are born, with camera crews and others breathing germs into a neo-natal unit.

I am NOT a fan of Gloria Allred, but agree with her here that the monies should be saved for the children… not to further the disgusting cause of this media whore.

But, I’m willing to listen to your side… care to explain yourself? How are they not being exploited?

By nanchan u on 05/05/2009 1:08 pm

e-mail alert

I don’t see that having a person’s picture taken is "exploiting them." And since the outrage of certain crazed members of the public has foreclosed the normal ways for her to help support her brood, a documentary-style TV show would seem to be he4 only recourse. As a mother and as a former child-care professional, I don’t see how this will harm the children in any way at all. Even if these octuplets were born to rich parents, their pictures would have been on TV — it is a news story of considerable interest.

And it doesn’t make any sense at all to assume that whoever was allowed into the neonatal unit with a camera would not have been appropriately scrubbed and masked. People are not permitted to wander in and out of those places.

"Exploited" has become one of those ridiculous, catch-all words that is now all but meaningless.

By roberta wickham on 05/05/2009 1:57 pm

e-mail alert

It’s one thing to have your baby picture in the public realm because you were born in an unusual way. It’s quite another to have hundreds of hours of video and thousands of pictures of all of your meltdowns, tantrums, or even just everyday activities ALL THE TIME on an endless loop.

The first in-vitro baby’s picture was in the press (1978). The first set of US octuplets (1998) was also in the press at the time. In cases like these, the kids had their privacy most of the time, and later media appearances - first birthday, 10th birthday, wedding, etc. - were rare, professionally handled, and well controlled.

Octomom is doing something more like what happened to the Dionne Quintuplets in the 1930s. They were raised for some years in a special nursery with an observation arcade for tourists (6,000 per day!). Octomom’s exposure of her kids through the Radar website and - possibly - a reality show - is pretty much the same thing, just updated for our era.

Personally - I don’t think children should EVER appear on "reality shows." The shows are too uncontrolled, and the potential for over-exposure and serious psychological harm is just too great.

That’s exploitation.

By Lila Kuh on 05/05/2009 8:10 pm

e-mail alert

"Octomom is doing something more like what happened to the Dionne Quintuplets in the 1930s. They were raised for some years in a special nursery with an observation arcade for tourists (6,000 per day!). Octomom’s exposure of her kids through the Radar website and - possibly - a reality show - is pretty much the same thing, just updated for our era."

How could being kept in a display case while 6000 tourists a day filed past be comparable to one or two people coming to the house every few weeks to take an hour’s worth of video footage? And explain how reality shows can cause psychological harm to children when the terms of the children’s involvement are clearly spelled out by contract?

By roberta wickham on 05/05/2009 8:29 pm

e-mail alert

In the Quintuplets’ case, the tourist arcade was screened so they could see the kids, but the kids couldn’t see them. In the Octomom case, the cameras DO intrude on the kids, although the actual audience remains invisible.

Psychological harm: go back and re-read my first paragraph. Imagine that YOU, as a child, are the target of this kind of exposure. Imagine what your school life will be like… imagine what your home life will be like. There is NO respite, there is NO privacy. Everyone has SEEN your misbehavior, your stupid embarrassing moments that most people would just rather forget about.

If you cannot imagine the misery this would cause a child, then please install some webcams in your living room and set up a website so that we can watch your family go about their business EVERY DAY. And no fair editing out any unpleasantness.

By Lila Kuh on 05/06/2009 7:28 am

e-mail alert

In the Dionne Quintuplets’ case the children were set apart like zoo animals, and were not allowed to lead normal lives. I don’t know what you think taking videos involves nowadays, but they now use video cameras that are scarcely visible and require no special wires. The format that’s being discussed for this TV show would involve covering "milestone events", so the dreaded, evil cameras would scarcely be in the home at all. I think that part of the difficulty here is that many posters have no idea what they are talking about.

By roberta wickham on 05/06/2009 8:14 am

e-mail alert

We shall just have to agree that we disagree, so here is the last thing I will add, which comes from someone who DOES know what he is talking about, from personal experience.

http://www.momlogic.com/2009/05/octomom_nadya_suleman_1.php

By Lila Kuh on 05/06/2009 11:21 am

e-mail alert

Peterson, IMO, is shaking this tree trying to get an extra fifteen minutes for himself. He was a full-time child actor, so if his parents took the money he earned and spent it on themselves, then he was exploited. In this instance, the children are not called upon to train, or rehearse or be yelled at by directors (my own experience) — most of the talking — and the work — will be done by Nadya. I hope that people understand that this is being done to defray houshold living expenses, and that on a small portion of it can realistically be put aside for the children to receive when they are adults.

By roberta wickham on 05/06/2009 2:11 pm

e-mail alert

If CA has a law that protects child stars then yes these children need their money protected. I am not saying Nadia won’t save money for them but that has yet to be seen…

By C Hardy on 05/05/2009 12:16 pm

e-mail alert

So if your children were earning money, by — say — being child models or even having a paper route — do you think it would be appropriate for some nosy neighbor to insist the courts appoint a guardian to make sure you don’t steal their money?

By roberta wickham on 05/05/2009 12:56 pm

e-mail alert

CA has very specific laws re: child work in film/media. This has been because of the many many parents who have used their children for their own gain. This started back as early as the 1930’s with the Coogan Law (in response to the exploitation of Jackie Coogan).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coogan_Law

The situation with Suleman’s children is significantly more serious than a paper route. That type of argument is ridiculous, and I suspect you know that. These are eight children, with little chance of any type of a normal life, that WILL spend the rest of their lives in the public eye.

Their mother, who has no source of income at this point other than the media that surrounds her, has already applied for a patent on the name she originally despised (Octomom) and has taken enormous amounts of money from the media in exchange for interviews, pictures, etc.

In some of the posts below, there is discussion re: celebrities accepting money for pictures of their children. That is entirely different than what is happening in this household. Celebrities selling photos of their children happens yes, but usually they DONATE the money to a favorite charity or cause. They have used that "right to photograph" to protect their children from paparazzi and to try to insure their own privacy.

I will only agree that it is probably not Gloria Allred’s place to bring this type of lawsuit up, but I defend the spirit of the suit. The mother has been benefiting enormously from an extremely well thought out exploitive plan for publicity for herself and her children.

Putting part of that money into trust for those children makes sense and is in accordance with CA law.

By nanchan u on 05/05/2009 5:09 pm

e-mail alert

Actually, I think it’s YOUR argument that’s ridiculous. The kids are not being called upon to do anything, except be themselves. Child actors have a full-time job, and the work is — in fact — very demanding and often unpleasant. I know, because when I was a child, I worked in films for a while. So you are talking about apples and oranges, really.

To the extent that Nadya has made any money at all, it is the entire family that benefits. I get the feeling that some of you won’t be happy until she’s barefoot, starving and has nothing but rags on her back.

I repeat: Gloria Allred needs to be disbarred for this. She is using her license to practice law to torture this very busy mother.

By roberta wickham on 05/05/2009 8:34 pm