"Please explain how the production company is going to recovers their million bucks in damages from the minor?"
Sniff away...
The common law rules are the "default rules". These default rules can be, and often are, modified by statute. Statutes trump common law rules.
So, we look at the law of, surprisingly enough, California:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fam/6750-6753.html
------------------------------------
"6751. (a) A contract, otherwise valid, of a type described in
Section 6750, entered into during minority, cannot be disaffirmed on
that ground either during the minority of the person entering into
the contract, or at any time thereafter, if the contract has been
approved by the superior court in any county in which the minor
resides or is employed or in which any party to the contract has its
principal office in this state for the transaction of business."
---------------------------------------
And what kind of contracts are we talking about.....
-------------------------------
6750. (a) This chapter applies to the following contracts entered
into between an unemancipated minor and any third party or parties on
or after January 1, 2000:
(1) A contract pursuant to which a minor is employed or agrees to
render artistic or creative services, either directly or through a
third party, including, but not limited to, a personal services
corporation (loan-out company), or through a casting agency.
"Artistic or creative services" includes, but is not limited to,
services as an actor, actress, dancer, musician, comedian, singer,
stunt-person, voice-over artist, or other performer or entertainer,
or as a songwriter, musical producer or arranger, writer, director,
producer, production executive, choreographer, composer, conductor,
or designer.
-------------------------
In fact, this piece of legislation was enacted specifically to AVOID the situation you describe in which parents or agents control the disposition of income derived by the minor's performance, and provide minors with the opportunity to contract directly. Additionally, the statute provides the court with authority to cut the parents out completely.
Macauley Culkin, whom I mentioned in particular, along with child performers Jena Malone, Drew Barrymore, Christina Ricci, and Michelle Williams, all took the additional step of obtaining legal emancipation from their parents while they were still minors, for the express purpose of making sure they and they alone were the beneficiaries of their contracts, and that their parents would not be provided with trusteeship over the 15% set-aside you will notice in that statute.
But this is all beside the original point, which was a minor's rights under a domain name registration contract with a registrar who does not expressly forbid minor registration (some do, some don't). Voiding a contract is an option that a minor has at common law. It is certainly not a mechanism that provides a third party, or the contracting party, with the right to void that contract.
In the US, the right to contract, as many other rights, applies to all "persons". Minors are people.
