They do. As others have noted on this thread there are two sides to every story, and they did give the father the chance to present his side at the end of the article, and he gave a pretty wishy-washy explanation.
While any father should fully want to provide for his children as best he can, the fact that the mother was able to casually donate the entire last payment to a charity raises the question of how much the father's payments were needed and if they actually went to supporting the child.
“... casually donate the entire last payment to a charity raises the question of how much the father’s payments were needed and if they actually went to supporting the child.”
The “need” may have been determined by statute, by tables that the court has to follow based on the parties’ income, custody terms, etc. If courts had to oversee how every dime was spent on child support - it would take an expansion in the number of courts, running 24/7 full out. If the reporter knew the rules, the mother should have been asked straight up - “How is donating the money intended to support the child in your child’s best interest, for example why did you not instead of put it aside for child’s future education? Appears you owe your child that money out of your own pocket.”