Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
2 comments 
Understand When the Justice Opens the Door for Accountability of Child Support, What the STJ Decided, and How to Act in Practice.
The father who pays child support can require the mother to prove how she spent the money? The Judiciary’s answer today is “it depends.” The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) is not linear and varies according to the specific case.
On May 19, 2024, the STJ itself published a special explaining that accountability in family law still generates divergent positions, especially when it involves child support. The court indicates that the oversight is not automatic and is only accepted in specific hypotheses.
The central point is the best interest of the child and the existence of concrete evidence of misallocation of funds, or situations where one of the parents manages the child’s assets. In these scenarios, the action can be considered useful and proportional.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
What the STJ Has Already Decided: Cases from 2020 and 2021
On August 4, 2020, the Third Chamber admitted the action to demand accountability from the paying parent in specific hypotheses, to oversee the allocation of the child support when there was justification linked to the well-being of the child or management of funds in their name. It was not a broad authorization, but a conditional green light based on evidence.
On November 25, 2021, the same Chamber ruled that, as a rule, the paying parent does not have a legal interest in requiring accountability from the guardian. The reason: once paid, the child support no longer integrates the payer’s assets and there is, by itself, no credit to be reimbursed. Result: accountability does not serve as a routine “audit” of the other parent’s life.
A publication from May 19, 2024 from the STJ supports this framework. There is a restrictive understanding in 2021, but specific openness in 2020. Thus, the legal path depends on the minimum evidence of wrongdoing or management of the child’s assets.
Legal Basis: CPC, ECA, and Civil Code
The CPC/2015 governs the action to demand accountability in article 550, providing for two phases and a 15-day period for the defendant to provide accountability after the judgment in the first phase. On April 14, 2021, the STJ determined that this period begins to run from the notification of the defense, and that the decision is interlocutory on merit (instrument appeal, as a rule). Delayed compliance prevents the defendant from challenging the plaintiff’s accounts.
In the ECA (art. 22), there is the duty of parents for support, custody, and education, a rule that guides any analysis: the focus is on protecting the best interest of the child, not resolving disputes between adults.
The Civil Code and Law 13.058/2014 address unilateral or shared custody. In custody, each parent has responsibilities proportional to their capabilities. Shared custody does not eliminate child support, and any doubts regarding expenses must follow the procedural limits established by the CPC and the jurisprudence of the STJ.
When the Justice Allows Oversight Over the Child’s Support
Accountability tends to be accepted when there are objective elements: indicators that the child support does not meet the child’s needs, existence of significant amounts in the child’s name under the management of one parent, or other circumstances that exceed mere suspicions. Prints, statements, receipts, emails, and conversations help demonstrate plausibility and utility of the action.
Without evidence, the risk is that the judge will understand that the request seeks to monitor the private sphere of the other parent, deviating from the purpose of child support. In this line, in 2021 the STJ closed the door to generic requests, without connection to the child’s assets or minimum evidence of wrongdoing.
Important: if the problem is insufficient child support amount, the way is through a revision action of child support, not accountability. The revision analyzes the need-possibility binomial based on evidence of income and expenses of the child.
Does Shared Custody Change Anything? And What If There Are Child’s Assets?
In shared custody, parents divide responsibilities, but this does not automatically extinguish child support. The amount should reflect the child’s needs and parents’ capabilities. If doubts persist about expenses with signs of irregularity, accountability can be assessed, within the limits already described.
When there are assets, income, or compensations in the child’s name under the management of one parent, judicial control tends to be more rigorous. In these cases, accountability is usually seen as a legitimate tool to safeguard the child’s assets.
If there are no signs of wrongdoing and the conflict is only about spending priorities in day-to-day life, the Judiciary has indicated that invasive oversight is not the way, preserving the guardian’s autonomy and the irreplaceable nature of child support.
Do you think that Justice should demand more transparency in the use of child support, even without evidence of wrongdoing, or does this invade the private life of the guardian and harm the child? Leave your comment and participate in the debate.
Se alguém paga, esse alguém tem sim direito a prestação de contas. A falta deste direito, além de facilitar a má utilização dos valores recebidos pelo outro Genitor em nome dos filhos, permite o enriquecimento sem causa do outro Genitor e a pensão acaba por não beneficiar o interessado, que é o menor.
Total acordo. Quem usa a pensão corretamente não tem a temer. Não é o salário do genitor do alimentado que está sendo fiscalizado, mas o valor pago de pensão.