Recently, there was a great comment thread about Robert Parker’s paternity and child support woes on Villainous Company. If you are unfamiliar with the story here it is from The Christian Science Monitor:

Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.

Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man’s child.

“We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding,” writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.

“We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized,” he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: “While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present.”

In effect, the high court is saying it’s partly Parker’s fault for trusting his wife.

The Parker case illustrates an increasingly contentious debate over the rights and responsibilities of divorced fathers who have been duped and don’t challenge paternity at or near the time of divorce. But it also raises fundamental questions about the nature of fatherhood and the legal responsibilities that can attach to a father-child relationship – even when that relationship is the result of fraud and deception by a wife and mother.

A commenter named Miss Ladybug made a great point:

The entire system is based on the principle of “mommy welfare” — in other words, give the maximum amount of dollars to the woman as is possible. I do not say “humanly” possible, because I have seen a judge order a man clearing 1,500 per month to pay 3,000 in child support. Naturally, if he does not pay he is a “deadbeat dad” who will be thrown in prison. By the way, we abolished debtor’s prisons when we created the Constitution in the 1700s, i.e. jailing someone for civil, monetary debts rather than for criminal activity. Not in the US divorce courts, though! In this arena, the Constitution does not apply.

All of this judicial heavy-handedness is supposedly justified because it is being done “for the children”. All of the money, however, goes to mom with no controls as to whether mommy spends the cash on formula, or on a new party dress. The Courts have repeatedly rejected requests from fathers to impose some type of oversight or constructive trust to ensure the money is actually spent for the benefit of the child.

I believe that the answer to this epidemic child support problem is more financial accountability as well. In fact, it would seem that there is a simple solution. I don’t see why the State could not set up Child Support Bank Accounts.

The custodial parent receiving the child support gets a debit card, checks, etc. Money can not be withdrawn from this account. There is a small monthly account maintenance fee payable by the parent paying child support. Then, at the end of the month a statement of the accounts activity goes to BOTH parents. There is no doubt in my mind that my ex-wife has spent child support payments irresponsibly. However, if I were receiving a bank statement disclosing where the money was spent, the issue would be solved. It encourages the custodial parent to use the funds for the child, AND the parent paying the child support has documented legal proof of fraud- or irresponsibility at the very least- in the event of litigation.

Plus, with this system, the custodial parent still keeps their dignity, and the non-custodial parent can find a little peace of mind. So, what do you think?