Gov. Mary Fallin did the right thing when she vetoed House Bill 3001 last week.

The proposal would have allowed a noncustodial parent to go to court seeking relief from child support payments during periods when the custodial parent refused visitation for at least six months.

Let’s unwind that a bit with an example: If a mother refused to live up to a divorce decree and allow her ex-husband to visit their child for six months, he would be able to go to court and ask for child support changes until she relents.

We can see how that idea was appealing on one level. If dad is living up to his end of a divorce decree and is paying the freight, he should be able to see his child under the terms of the same order.

But, as Fallin pointed out in her veto message, the proposed solution to the problem would deal with mom's actions by taking away money meant to support the child. Your mom is wrong, now off to bed and no dinner for you!

We have sympathy for divorced parents denied access to their children in these ugly situations.

But paying for your child's needs comes with parenthood, and it's an obligation reinforced by the mandates of a divorce. You don't get out of it just because your ex is misbehaving.

The law already has a means for enforcing visitation rights. They may not be enough in some situations, but the HB 3001 answer is not a proper solution to that problem.

As parents have taught their children for millennia, two wrongs don't make a right.

It's disappointing that this misguided legislation made it all the way through the legislative process, but Fallin did the right thing in preventing it from becoming law.

The bill had equity as its purpose, but its potential unintended consequences were not just unfair, they were unacceptable.