Split Decisions: When a Teen Makes $100K a Month

When a 15-year-old becomes a six-figure-a-month influencer, who gets to decide what happens next?

In this episode of Split Decisions, veteran family law attorneys Tim Miranda and Carlos Tavares argue both sides of a modern custody battle that’s becoming more common in today’s digital world.

The case:
A teenage girl has built a wildly successful social media brand. Her mother manages the account and believes her daughter is thriving — financially and creatively. Her father asks the court to intervene, citing safety concerns, sexualized comments, declining grades, and long-term risks.

At the center of the debate:
 • What does “best interest of the child” mean in the influencer era?
 • Can one parent shut down a minor’s online career?
 • Does financial success outweigh academic performance?
 • Where does protection end and control begin?

Part 1 focuses on custody, parental authority, and digital dignity.

Part 2 dives into the financial implications — including who controls the money behind a minor’s brand.

Every trial has two sides.
You be the judge.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:07

Every trial has two sides. It's about what is in her best interest. She wishes to be heard. She doesn't want to be punished.

SPEAKER_01 0:15

Which one wins? You be the judge. This is split decisions where veteran divorce attorneys go head to head over real-life conflict shaping today's family court. Today's case was so interesting we had to break it into two parts. Because when a child becomes an influencer, the legal issues don't stop at just custody. They extend into money, control, and a child's future. Part one, we're focusing on custody and parental control. The case centers on a 15-year-old girl whose life has become content. Her father is asking the court to step in and stop the online exposure, arguing the content has become unsafe, sexualized, and damaging.

SPEAKER_00 1:02

The mother sees it very differently. She manages the social media accounts and believes her daughter is thriving. The online presence has created real income, real opportunity, and a potential career path in a modern digital economy. She argues that restricting the content would punish success rather than protect the child. I'm Carlos Tavaras and I'll be representing the mother.

SPEAKER_01 1:31

I'm Tim Miranda and I'll be representing the father.

SPEAKER_00 1:34

All right, thank you. Good morning. The issue before the court now is the custody and visitation of a 15-year-old girl who has become an influencer. Mom has helped facilitate her influencer status, and now she's in a position where her posts and opinions are now making an excess of six figures per month on a slow month. Dad's filed a motion with the court today to terminate this because he doesn't, in essence, think it's good for the child. Sexual exploitation concerns exist. She's too young to give consent, etc. At the end of the day, the issue is both parents possess joint legal custody. Joint legal custody allows either parent to make a decision. For the court to require both parents to agree on something that has to exist in the order. Nonetheless, we're here today to address this conflict between the parties. Letting dad simply terminate that is very punitive, especially in light of mother saying, I am in agreement with it. We agree that the safety concerns exist, and I assume there will be no posts that are too racy. Second, the issue that dad raises regarding her academic performance and the issues she's having at school, those are foreseeable and honest. The reality is she makes more money in a month than the teachers make in two years. Her attitude is that she doesn't see why she needs to be doing well in school, let alone going to college. At this time, she doesn't want to go to college. She wants to pursue this career. She is enjoying it and doing very well at it, and the court should hesitate before punishing this child for what she's doing. Dad projects a lot of potential harm, but at the end of the day, there's no actual harm that's occurring. Daughter getting C's in school instead of A's is not a crisis. Or if she even to drop out at school, that would be a concern. But she articulates very well hey, I don't see school being my thing. There's nothing here that I think is worth pursuing it, getting A's, going to college. That's not the career choice I make. So what we have is a 15-year-old who's making her career choice now, and while she is technically a minor, we should give her some latitude in that. Under the code, a 14-year-old can address the court if they wish to be heard. She wishes to be heard. She doesn't want to be punished. We would ask the court to deny dad's request with an understanding that if anything becomes too racy or potentially sexually exploited by the daughter and her posts, we would certainly come back to court and address it. Mom is a mom, and mom still wants to protect her daughter from those type of things. Yes, kids sometimes post things that are a little racy because every girl wants to be a big girl, but to date, nothing has crossed that line. Further, while there are a lot of likes and influencers, nothing has really risen to the level of a crisis. If such stalker or troll or whatever occurs, we will deal with that in due course. Because of course my client loves her daughter as much as father and wants her to be safe. We would just ask that the court allow the daughter to continue and not prevent it or punish her and make a clear order regarding the parents and that she is allowed to continue to do this. Thank you, Your Honor.

SPEAKER_01 5:11

Thank you, Your Honor. We just had a vicarious judicial admission that the daughter is doing poor in school and the mother supports that. So we've heard that she wants to address the court, Family Code Section 3042. She's old enough. Instead of addressing the court, instead of telling the court what she wants because she's a minor, maybe she should listen. Maybe someone should talk to her about the fact that college isn't for everyone. Fine. You're doing good today, that could change tomorrow. But what happens if you have no education? What are you going to spend all that money on if you don't know what to spend it on? I don't know. There's other influers that have done really well. Kim Kardashian, she wants to be a lawyer. She would probably say, bang the books, stay in school, focus. The point is, this child is still a minor, this court still has jurisdiction. College, okay, she's an adult, do what you will. But today, who would ever concede that not doing good in school is in the best interest of a child? Who would ever concede? Who would ever agree that a parent fomenting a child doing poorly in school to make money so the parent can make money off the child's money is good for the child. That's what really happened here. Mother helped her with this career. Mother was a failure in her own career. So the child now is famous, internet famous. Mother is vicariously famous. She doesn't want to give that up. And let's talk about the money. Oh, we'll get there in the next segment. But in this particular issue, when it comes to custody and visitation, how could you sell your daughter's education for your own financial benefit and say that's in the best interest? She's the manager. She's profiting. She's managing. Okay, great. Can't give that up. But how does that serve the child's best interest? If this were a typical extracurricular activity, like soccer or basketball, and she was doing well and wanted to participate, everyone would be behind it 100%. But we have the financial component, and it's coming at the cost of her education. That is completely unacceptable. I heard and I agree about trolls and perverts and other people. And I understand that the content is not content that is being targeted to those particular people, if that's how you would even express that. But here's the issue: read the comments. There is admissible evidence in our exhibits showing the type of people that are following this young lady. And she's talking about fashion, and they're talking about other things expletives, gross suggestions, things that are beyond the pale. So there is a significant health, safety, welfare issue at play. Because she can't control what other people do. And we're gonna come back to court. I appreciate that suggestion, but what if it's too late? What do we come back for? What if something happens? What court are we going to at that point? Because it's already happened. Criminal court? Probate court? My point is, this is all wrong. She's a young lady. My client is happy that she knows what she wants to do. But we all know that life changes. She has to be prepared intellectually, emotionally, and otherwise to deal with this. And if we tell her now, don't worry about school, don't worry about education, just make that money. That is the wrong message, and that is not the mandate of this court. This court is required. It's sacrosanct. Protect her health, safety, welfare. Having an education while she's a minor, that's a baseline. We must have that. It's imperative. So protect that. If you want to put guardrails in, do them. But we can't wait until later. We must meter it now. Thank you, Your Honor.

SPEAKER_00 9:14

Your Honor, and there's one other thing that the court should consider in weighing this is the reaction of telling a 15-year-old daughter that she can't do something that she's very vested in doing. So while the parents are going through their conflict in this courtroom, the court in fact does not have jurisdiction over the individual daughter. They have jurisdiction over the parents. If you make an order that allows the parents to withhold her from doing this, what happens when she doesn't like that order and decides to resist? What happens to her when she really starts to put her influence into this situation? I think the court should take that into consideration because, as we know, teenage girls and boys have influence on their custody of situations and they need to be considered. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 10:04

Your Honor, this court tells minor children on a daily basis through their parents, you must do this, you can't do that. You're going to be with your father every alternating weekend, similar orders. It's not about what her reaction will be. It's not about whether or not she's going to like it. It's about what is in her best interest. Those are arguments on custody and control. Should a parent be allowed to expose a child online over the other parent's objection?

SPEAKER_00 10:32

Or should the court respect a parent's decision to support a child's success in a rapidly evolving digital world?

SPEAKER_01 10:39

Cast your vote in the comments or the poll and tell us who made the stronger argument.

SPEAKER_00 10:43

And stay with us for part two, where we break down the financial battle behind the influencer brand.

SPEAKER_01 10:49

This is Split Decisions, a segment of the AM sidebar from Antonio Miranda.