What Are Family Courts Trying to Accomplish by Giving Out Child Support Money Without Any Accountability?

 By and large, there is no requirement that a parent receiving child support provide any proof that the money is being used for the children. One divorce attorney in California states this on his website: " In California, custodial parents are not required to give an accounting of how child support money is spent to the parent who pays the support."

I suppose this seems like a good idea on the face of it. What parent would use child support money on themselves? I suppose the assumption underlying this is that no parent could possibly be that selfish. Courts might also believe that it's not worth fighting over how the money is spent. Dad is mad about sending child support to Mom and complains that she used child support money to buy birthday presents and the courts want to make sure that Mom isn't getting harassed by Dad about the birthday presents. Either way, the only way to view the fact that there is no oversight required for child support is that courts are approaching child support as fundamentally an honor system and they believe that it is rare to nonexistent that any parent would use child support money on themselves. But again, courts rarely require much objective documentation of a parent's ability to care for a child (and even when they have it, it is often ignored).

I believe this to be a naive approach, though giving out money without requirement of documentation seems to be a running theme with the uncovering of fraudulent daycare centers and hospices in California and Minnesota. However, I don't believe the other parent should be the one to decide how the money is used either. Divorces can be contentious and frequently one or both parties is unstable (see the three pages I have written on the prevalence of mental health problems in divorce and the impact of mental health on divorce and custody) and giving the other parent control is asking for trouble. There are also an increasing number of unemployed custodial parents now, which creates another incentive for some custodial parents to potentially exploit the child support money they receive. So we are left with a situation where there is a high likelihood of mentally unstable, unemployed individuals receiving money with no oversight and the courts simply rely on assumption that the money will be used for its intended purpose. The honor system might be fine if you want to put snacks or flowers on a table and have your neighbors come put money in a jar in exchange for what you are selling, but money acquired in a legal process should have a higher standard than a table of flowers to make sure that it is being used effectively, especially when children are involved.

Ideally child support funds would be held in a separate account overseen by the state's child support office and accessed with a separate card like SNAP EBT funds-- except with no possibility of withdrawing funds as cash. Probably the least fun but most effective way of making sure that the funds go towards the children is to restrict the use of child support funds to a few definite expenses like housing, utilities, clothing, groceries (restricted to the same types of food that are eligible for SNAP), school expenses and specific extracurricular activity expenses  like dance lessons, soccer cleats, art classes, etc. That means that child support funds couldn't be used for the ice cream truck, Christmas and birthday presents, ordering pizza, or nails and hair for prom, but that's why the custodial parent should have a job is to pay for things like that herself. Having carefully delineated categories reduces the ambiguity and increases the likelihood that the funds go towards the children's needs, not the parent's wants. Random audits from the pool of child support recipient should be performed every day to increase the likelihood of custodial parents' compliance. If parents know that they could be audited at any time, it increases the likelihood that they will comply with the requirements. (The paying parent could request an audit once every two years if he suspects that there is something amiss with the use of child support funds.) The argument to that is probably something like "That's so much work and what about the costs?!" Well it seems like there is always money to pay for daycare centers and hospices and light rail systems whether or not those end up serving anyone, so I think states could come up with the funds for a few employees to perform audits. (They could probably work from home.) 

Custodial parents should be required to keep receipts for all purchases they make with child support funds for up to two years. (I can hear the argument now: "But keeping track of receipts for child support would be too burdensome for a custodial parent!" And the correct response to that argument is: "You believe that you are capable of providing for and raising a child, but incapable of putting receipts in a file folder?") Finally, fines should be in place for misuse of the funds, for both parents and retail or service providers. Debit cards could be marked with a warning like "WARNING- using or accepting child support funds for unauthorized expenses carries a minimum fine of $500 for each infraction." If an audit shows that the funds were used for the liquor store, and a shopping spree to a trendy boutique, and airfare to Miami, each of those purchases would incur a $500 fine. Any retail or service provider would be subject to the same penalty. So taking child support funds for a manicure would incur a $500 fine-- each time.

So what are family courts trying to accomplish by giving out child support without any accountability? Probably they are trying to kinda-sorta show that they doing something for the children without having to actually do much work. And once again, the family courts cater to self-centered parents rather than protecting children.