Split Decisions: Influencer Finances

What happens when a child becomes the breadwinner? 

In Part 2 of Influencer Wars, the debate shifts from control to cash. A 15-year-old influencer is generating hundreds of thousands of dollars per month through brand deals, sponsored posts, and fan gifts — more than both parents combined. The father wants child support reduced. The mother argues the income belongs solely to the child. 

So who’s right? 

Veteran family law attorneys go head-to-head over explosive questions shaping modern family court: 

• Should a parent still pay guideline child support if the child earns millions?
• Can a parent manage — and profit from — their child’s influencer career?
• Are influencer kids the new child actors, requiring mandatory financial safeguards?
• Does a child’s income ever relieve a parent of their legal obligation to support?

From fiduciary duties and 2025 influencer protection laws to high-income deviation arguments and “momager” management fees, this episode dives into the legal gray areas of the digital economy.
 
When a minor becomes the brand, the courtroom becomes the battleground.
 
Cast your vote: Should child influencer income impact child support — or is that a dangerous precedent?
 
Subscribe for more real-world legal debates where the arguments collide… and you decide.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:07

Every trial has two sides.

SPEAKER_00 0:09

We have a child that's making more than the parents collectively in a month, but the child is not mandated to support herself. Which one wins? You be the judge.

SPEAKER_01 0:18

This is Split Decisions, where veteran divorce attorneys go head-to-head over real-life conflict shaping today's family courts.

SPEAKER_00 0:31

Welcome back to Split Decisions. In part one, we examined who controls a child online presence.

SPEAKER_01 0:36

Now we turn to the money. This 15-year-old is generating hundreds of thousands of dollars each month through sponsored posts, brand deals, and fan gifts. Father has no access to the accounts, no visibility into contracts, no oversight of the income. He's asking the court to step in and protect his daughter's earnings. The father is also asking the court to deviate from guideline child support in light of the hundreds of thousands of dollars a month his daughter is earning.

SPEAKER_00 1:04

The mother argues that the income is being used exclusively for the child's benefit. She manages the funds, pays for private school tuition and expenses, and believe court interference is unnecessary. She also argues that no existing law clearly prohibits a parent from managing a child's influencer income.

SPEAKER_01 1:23

So the legal question becomes: is this the child's income alone or is this income available for child support?

SPEAKER_00 1:30

And should courts treat child influencers like child actors with mandatory financial safeguards? I'm Carlos Tavares representing the mother.

SPEAKER_01 1:38

I'm Tim Miranda representing the father. So the guideline presumption is based upon the parents' incomes and their standard of living. But what do we do here because we have a child that's making more than the parents collectively in a month? How do we reconcile that, Your Honor, where we're going to set the standard low based on her eye income that exceeds that of the parents? It creates quite a conundrum. But the issue more importantly is why should he continue to pay support based on his standard of living when she supersedes that each and every month and therefore has much more than she needs and much more than her parents even have at this point.

SPEAKER_00 2:20

Your Honor, regarding the issue of the child's income and whether or not support should be modified, the statutes are very, very clear. They explicitly discuss it is the parents' income. 4053 has mandatory principles. It is based on the parent's income and is a public policy that both parents shall equally contribute to the child's lifestyle. So if you have a really rich parent, they're going to pay a lot to make the really poor parent so the child has an equalized lifestyle, enjoying the lifestyle of both of them. Here we have a unique opportunity or circumstance because the child lives at a lifestyle or is entering or is beginning to live a lifestyle that exceeds both parents' standard of living. Nowhere in the code does it dictate the child's standard of living is the metric. It is the parents' obligation to support the children, and they work that out themselves. It's not the child's obligation to support herself and relieve one of those parents from that obligation. Both are mandatory required under Family Code 4053 to support the child equally to the best of their ability, and that's what the court should do. The court under 4057 has circumstances that are statutorily articulated that allow for deviation of support. We look at the bonds case, the classic, where one parent has so much money that plugging in and calculating guideline support is just an obscene amount. How much is too much? That is a parent case, income of the parents. And under 4057, the court can say, hey, we can deviate up or down, and we can deviate from that support amount because it's just in excess. Nowhere in the statutory exceptions does it allow for a child's income to be utilized to relieve one parent's obligation for support pursuant to the other parent. That's what's being requested here. On another issue, regarding some of the issues raised by dad, regarding the management of the money, the visibility of the income, et cetera, there are statutes in place similar to the actor statutes which govern the kid fluencer statutes, which are similar to the actor statutes. Mom is in a fiduciary capacity to the child at this moment. It is not mom's money. If mom does anything outrageous, overt, questionable, that fiduciary standard exists as a matter of law pursuant to 3083 and other statutory codes. We also have mandatory set asides for the people paying these children. So much like Disney paying a child actor, there's laws that require them to set aside 15% of that income in a separate account in the child's name, and there's various other statutory mandates and requirements to make sure the money is not disappeared by a parent taking advantage. Those statutes have been strengthened as of January 1st, 2025. So dad's issues on transparency are well made, but the fact of the matter is his belief that mom can just do what she wants with the money is incorrect. The law puts a number of impositions on mother. The court has the ability to, based on the circumstances, which we don't have fully fleshed out before us, to appoint a professional fiduciary, a a CPA, require mandatory disclosures financially, which would be required to dad. So dad's request for uh transparency in these regards, he's entitled to that. Uh the issue is, however, I don't think he's entitled to reduce his support amount to mother for support because the child now makes a significant income.

SPEAKER_01 6:19

So, Your Honor, I'm really glad to hear that mother has a fiduciary duty to this child because mother is making a lot of money off this child as the manager, the momager. What's interesting about that, if we're talking about guideline deviation, is that we have to start with the court making a guideline child support finding. So let's go ahead and do that, please. And when we do that, we're going to consider all these management fees as part of her income available for support. And when we include those fees with her other income, which is now probably very little because all she does is micromanage the daughter and this could fluence her career, my client support is still going to be reduced. But more importantly than that, let's talk about the deviation. So you make your guideline finding. The court absolutely has discretion under 4057 to consider this income. Because on behalf of mother, Mr. Tavares had argued that this is exclusively for the child's benefit. So this child is making hundreds of thousands of dollars a month and it's exclusively for the child's benefit. So, how do we reconcile that with what the child needs? I mean, the whole idea behind the guideline deviation, let's say in the case of an extraordinary high earner, is if you just put in the guideline formula, which is otherwise presumptively correct, then a child could be getting, what, tens of millions a month, depending on the income of the very rich payor. And where does all the surplus go? It goes to the payee, so the parent that's receiving the support. And if it exceeds, then of course, what is really needed to ensure that the needs are being adequately met, that's just a windfall, isn't it? That's what we have to consider. We can dodge and bob and weave and talk about this being the child's money, and all of it is the child's money, and it shouldn't relieve the oblig or parent, the pay or parent, under 4053. I agree with that in principle, but not in practice here, because so much money is being made. Mom is making so much money off the money being made, and so much money is being made that's exclusively for the child's benefit. That how could the court say that my client paying guideline child support on top of that is what it takes to meet the child's needs? We have admitted into evidence our own analysis of what those needs are and how they are being exceeded. The court must consider that. By the way, there's Family Code Section 3902, which would allow this court to earmark a portion of the child's property, the money, for their own support. You can use those two together in lockstep to say we need to do a deviation. Now, ultimately the court has this discretion, and the court should use it. And what do you really have to discern? How much of this is mother, as we argued about before in the custody part of this? How much of this is mother interloping? How much of it is her trying to make a buck and find fame? And now, because this was very clear throughout the entire custody portion, how much of this is mother just focusing on the money? Don't go to school, make money, so I get my management fee. That's not what should happen here. And the best way to control that, the best way to save this child is make sure that with the controls over her property, an adequate amount of support is being paid, and the rest is being invested, and I agree there too. Let's get a professional, let's get a fiduciary, somebody who did do good in school, someone who does want to learn to manage this money. So if and when this career doesn't prosper as an adult, she has a nest egg to live on. Thank you, Your Honor.

SPEAKER_00 10:00

Your Honor, regarding the issue of mother earning an income, I think counsel's point is well made. If mother is providing services for the daughter, she should be imputed income and properly paid an income pursuant to the influential statutes. That income, once established, and as long as it's in accordance with the law, should certainly be considered in reaching the guideline amount. However, the court then says, do we deviate? The guideline for child support is presumptedly a reflection that the child's needs are being met based on the standard of living and incomes and abilities of the parties. That's where the focus is, not on the fact that the 15-year-old daughter is now making a lot of money. It would be inherently unjust to say dad's obligation to pay support to mom is reduced because the daughter has money. Inversely, that would be unfair if it went the other way. Both parents have the obligation to do it, and neither parent should be relieved of that obligation. Guideline support should be guideline support. There should be no deviation. The code says specifically that the court may deviate or has discretion to deviate if the application of the formula will be unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances of the specific case. It lists things. None of them lift list a high income of the child. So the child's income is a distraction that makes us think, oh, let's make it a little easier. But the child is not mandated under our codes to support herself. So it's a red herring, it should be avoided, and mother's income should be considered in full for the work she provides. And I believe those influential statutes also have limitations on what expenses of the child can be paid. So mom is not allowed to simply take the money and start paying bills. She has to go through various checkboxes and approvals and statutory lists in order to make sure the money of the child is being spent appropriately, again, subject to the fiduciary standard. We ask that the guideline be set and that be it. Don't deviate from it.

SPEAKER_01 12:18

So, Your Honor, one final point on Family Code Section 3902. I'm going to read directly from the statute. Those are our two cases, and now the decision is yours. Should a parent be allowed to control and spend a child's influence or income without court oversight?

SPEAKER_00 12:53

Or would regulation harm legitimate opportunities in a modern digital economy?

SPEAKER_01 12:57

Cast your vote in the comments or the poll. Tell us who made the stronger argument. This is split decisions where the arguments collide and you decide. Subscribe for more real world legal debates on the AM sidebar from Antonian Miranda.