Jackie Coogan's last days on the television screen showed audiences a supporting actor nurturing his craft; a stocky, balding man with semi-sad eyes and excellent timing. But in his first films in the 1920s, Coogan was a child star-discovered by Charlie Chaplin-who captured audiences' hearts with his beautiful profile, classic Dutch-boy haircut, and large eyes that seemed to engulf the world.
But there was a problem. While Coogan was getting the applause, his parents were getting his money. By the time he reached "majority," the legal term for becoming an adult, he thought $4 million would be awaiting him in trust. It wasn't.
Five months before Jackie's 21st birthday, Jack Sr. had killed himself and three other passengers when his Pierce Arrow sped off a hairpin curve. Jackie somehow survived the accident.
When he turned 21, his mother wouldn't release any funds to him. He eventually took her and Arthur Bernstein, his business manager and new stepfather, to court for his earnings from assets in Jackie Coogan Productions, Inc. By the end of a lengthy trial, he had learned that the assets had shriveled to just over $250,000, of which he received half.
In an apparent attempt to legally protect child actors from their parents' and others' greed, as well as from emotional and physical harm during performance, the California legislature in 1936 approved a section of its Family Code that is commonly referred to as the "Coogan law." Only New York and Florida have similar laws based on the pioneering California act.
"The entertainment industry presents many opportunities for children to be hurt financially and otherwise by companies that contract with minors, and by parents and guardians who willfully spend a child's hard-earned cash," states Sally R. Gaglini, a Boston entertainment and family law attorney, in her 1997 article "Protecting Children's Income; How Key States Handle Contracts for Minors."
She later notes of different states' Coogan laws, "Such laws are meant to ensure that minors' income will be escrowed and saved until adulthood. On the other hand, these statutes protect entertainment companies by preventing minors from disaffirming contracts."
Responding to statutory flaws, the Screen Actors Guild-through its government relations department and Young Performers Committee-last year pushed for and received new California legislation that added real teeth to guard children working in the entertainment and sports industries.
The new law, which went into effect Jan. 1, is far-reaching, SAG believes, and protects the child in other states because the parent company for production companies in New York and other cities are often based in California.
Some major new changes to the California law include:
€ 100 percent coverage of all minors' contracts rather than the old law's coverage of some five percent of court-approved pacts;
€ Earnings become the child's separate property rather than the parents' community property under the state's community property laws;
€ 15 percent of gross earnings must be set aside for the child, with the other 85 percent used to pay such reasonable operating expenses as professional support (agents, attorneys, etc.), acting lessons, tutors, and transportation;
€ Producers must make timely deposits so interest will immediately begin building on the child's principal earnings, and
€ Parents or guardians must maintain a fiduciary relationship-governed by trust law-with the minor.
Eyes on a Federal Law
Former child star Paul Peterson, a SAG member who helped the guild write and lobby for California amendments, would still like to see more changes, including a federal law and statutes in more states. In fact, he's dedicating his life to it.
Peterson became a household face and name in the late 1950s and early '60s on network primetime TV's The Donna Reed Show. Now in his 50s, he and his wife Rana, a registered nurse, operate the not-for-profit A Minor Consideration, offering group support to child actors, their parents, and former child actors. The organization's members now number around 600, ranging from young performers and parents to former child stars such as Patty Duke and Margaret O'Brien.
Peterson himself had an apparent happy experience with his teen days on TV: Nobody abused him or robbed him of money. But witnessing the struggles of child performers who became addicted to drugs and alcohol, lost monies to adults, or lost themselves after outgrowing their marketability, led the Petersons to take action. The catalyst, says Peterson, was the suicides of three friends-former child actors-as they moved into their 40s.
Peterson was a leader in working with SAG on the new California Coogan legislation. Asked why the new Coogan law's logical protections-such as full coverage of minor contracts and a child's entitlement to his entire earnings-weren't included in the original law, Peterson explained that, despite its title, the statute was originally created to protect the movie studios from children backing out of contracts.
"Before the law change, only long-term series and long-term film contracts could have money set aside by law," Peterson said in a recent interview. In fact, the original California legislation provided those protections only if some party petitioned a state court to specify what earnings belonged to the child. The current New York and Florida laws, which mirror the old California statute, still possess those limitations. And, in practice, the filing party is usually the producer who wants to protect the film or TV project, Peterson said.
"I'm delighted that, for the first time, the promise of the old Coogan law... is now a true protection for all children in the entertainment industry," he added. He also saluted SAG and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) for their strong support of the new law.
"Most parents do this really quite well," explained Peterson. "They stand up for their children. They protect the income, keep records, pay the taxes. And most producers take care of the kids on the stage and sets. But the laws aren't written for most parents and producers."
Peterson pointed out that when he explains the realities of current laws, and what they lack, lawmakers nationwide drop their mouths.
"They thought that, with the Coogan law, the problem was fixed. But it isn't," he said. In Washington, he recently met with Congressional leaders who are ready to start the process of creating, in effect, a federal Coogan law.
"Without question, a federal law is coming in 2001," Peterson declared. "The question is, how extensive will it be?" BSW
Roger Armbrust writes for Back Stage.
