Lawyer speaks up for porn film baby

By GREGG WYCHERLEY

A porn actress who wants to give birth during a pornographic movie has let her "desire for stardom" override her concern for the child's welfare, a court heard yesterday.

The woman, a 7 1/2-months-pregnant former stripper known as Nikki, lay in a Waikato Hospital bed yesterday with pregnancy complications as four lawyers struggled with the unprecedented case.

Child, Youth and Family chief social worker Shannon Pakura has applied for a wardship order to prevent New Zealand moviemaker Vixen Direct from filming the birth for a porn video, Ripe.

Yesterday, Vivienne Ullrich, a lawyer appointed by the court to represent the unborn child, said Ms Pakura had concluded after meeting Nikki that she was more interested in her own fame than the baby's welfare.

"She believes that Nikki's desire for stardom will override her intention to consider the best interests of the child," Ms Ullrich told the High Court at Hamilton.

She said Vixen Direct's owner, Steve Crow, had told the court that the company wanted to film Nikki "from the waist up" during childbirth.

But "he intends to show Nikki, including her genitals, while she is in labour".

"That would include footage up to the baby becoming visible in the birth canal."

Ms Ullrich said the company also intended to include footage of a scan of the foetus and show the baby's face and hand in the movie.

The mother and the film company had deliberately sought "as much publicity as possible" to promote a world-first depiction of birth in a pornographic movie.

The child ran the risk of attention in future life from paedophiles and it was unacceptable for a baby, even before birth, to be associated with pornography, the lawyer said.

"It's that aspect of sexualising children that I'm particularly concerned about."

Ms Ullrich said the film would infringe the baby's basic rights, including privacy, the right not to be an object of sexual gratification, not to be in a porn movie and not to be exploited for the commercial gain of others.

The mother's right to appear in a pornographic movie was not so fundamental as to override the child's basic human rights, she said.

But Vixen Direct lawyer Paul Geoghegan said assurances had been given that footage would not show the baby coming out.

Mr Geoghegan said no risk to the baby's welfare had been proved.

He challenged whether the court's jurisdiction under the Guardianship Act extended to the rights of an unborn child.

"Those rights crystallise at the time the child is born and not before."

Mr Geoghegan said it was illogical to ban filming of the mother in labour when no such restriction was placed on pregnant women in porn movies.

Justice Paul Heath will give his decision this morning.