Los Angeles Lakers star Steve Nash has allegedly been in a bitter child support battle with his ex, Alejandra Amarilla. TMZ reports that Nash allegedly doesn't want to pay up because he is worried that Alejandra, who is an excessive spender, will waste the child support payments by spoiling the kids with expensive luxuries that they do not need. If ordered to pay child support, can Nash limit what Amarilla uses the child support payments for?
Child support payments can be used for anything that is considered "necessary" for the child's care and well-being. This generally includes things such as the child's food, clothing, school expenses, after-school expenses and toys. Costs for rent or mortgage, utility bills and other household items are also typically justified as going towards the basic care of the child.
However, California (like a majority of the states) does not require the parent who receives the child support payments to give an accounting to the other parent of how the child support money is spent. Only ten states allow courts to demand an accounting of expenses and spending of child support money received in ten states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington). Also in Alabama, courts are allowed to demand such accounting under certain circumstances.
Here in California, it is merely presumed that the child support money is spent on the child. Thus, the parent who is making the child support payments does not have much say regarding how the money is used once it leaves their hands.
But what happens when the parent paying the child support suspects that the money is being used not only to care for their children but that it is also going towards the other parent's personal needs? Unfortunately, not much can be done unless the child's needs are actually being neglected or ignored. The payor parent won't be able to seek a modification in his or her child support order from the court without significant evidence that the child's needs are not being met by the parent who receiving the child support payment.
While the parent paying spousal support may want reassurance that their hard-earned dollars are actually going towards their children's needs, rather than their ex's luxuries, unfortunately the law in California is not set up to provide such reassurance. So if Nash is indeed ordered to pay child support to Amarilla, it looks like he won't have much support from the family law court in keeping tabs on Amarilla's spending.