Can an authorized independent action in superior court be brought in the name of the child or by a parent?

3 With one possible exception none of the cases cited by real party discuss or deal with the question of whether the authorized independent action in superior court must be brought in the name of the child or may be maintained by a parent. The possible exception is Paxton v. Paxton, supra, 150 Cal. 667, 89 P. 1083. In that case two actions for adult child support were involved. Both were in fact instituted in the names of the children. (150 Cal. at p. 668, 89 P. 1083.) However, in determining the actions were authorized under the law, the court stated in part: "Section 206 of the Civil Code is a part of the substantive law of the land, and establishes and declares a legal duty of the parent to maintain their children who are within its provisions, and establishes the right in such children to have such maintenance. As the duty runs to the children, the latter are the persons to whom the right imposed by the duty accrues; and they are the proper parties to an action to enforce such right and compel the performance of such duty." (150 Cal. at p. 672, 89 P. 1083, emphasis added.)