Is it ok to use a check without a pre-printed check number?
For the clearing house, only the routing number and the check amount [which gets encoded before its presented to clearing] is important. The check numbers were put in as a fraud prevention mechanism to ensure that one check was only presented once and that it was issued to a particular account. Typically issued in sequence.   So as your account is new, the bank may have a mechanism to verify the checks [maybe based on amount and other info]. If your volume of check issuing increases, they may start putting in a check number to better track. They are valid checks, but you're going to get hassled when you try to use them. There's a perception that people using starter checks are more likely to bounce or otherwise be troublesome. When more payments were made with checks, some vendors would not accept checks with low numbers either! Checks are very cheap to get printed these days, save yourself some trouble and get some printed.
While it is possible to have pre-printed checks with a limit on them, I'd be worried about two things: That limit somehow getting ignored by the banks and the resulting hassle on your part. Anyone unscrupulous could try to talk dad into simply writing more than one check. Dad should give you power of attorney and let you dole out a monthly allowance into his account. Yeah, it's a tough conversation, just like the one about not driving anymore. The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail.   My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like. No, most check deposits are processed that way. Banks transmit the pictures of the checks between themselves, and allow business customers to deposit scans for quite some time now. I see no reason for you to be concerned of a check being in a dusty drawer, it's been deposited, cannot be deposited again. If you're concerned of forgery - well, nothing new there. "In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed ""as deposit only"" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there." "You can (usually) take it to your bank, and with appropriate identification, endorse the check with the words, ""not used for the purpose intended."" The one time I needed to not-use a money order, I was instructed to do so by the cashier/clerk at the bank." For the first case to occur, you need to have an agreement in place with the bank, this is called overdraft protection. It's done at a cost, but cheaper than the potential series of bounce fees. I've never heard of the second choice, partial payment. That's not to say that it's not possible. The payment not made is called a bounced check, you and the recipient will be harmed a fee. I believe it's a felony to write bad checks. Good to not write a check unless there's a positive balance taking that check into account. As Dilip suggests, ask your bank. Yes, and there are almost no checks (no pun intended) on people pulling money from your account using a routing number. It is an EXTREMELY insecure system. If you want a real Halloween scare, read this article: Easy Check Fraud Technique Draws Scrutiny. Unfortunately you just have to live with it. If you are curious why this loophole is allowed to continue, consider how hard it is to close it without undermining the convenience of checks. Short of you going to the bank with each person you write a check to and showing ID to validate the transaction, I don't see how you could continue to use a negotiable instrument like this without such a security hole.  The ultimate answer is going to have to be replacing checks with other means of payment. "Yes.  This article describes opting-out: http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/overdraft-fees-what-banks-charge/ It is true, I think, that most banks will offer this as a ""courtesy"" by default, but I believe that they must offer an option to opt-out. I checked my bank's webpage, and they explicitly describe how to opt-out by calling a number or visiting a bank branch, but it required digging carefully to find that information. That being said, are you sure that you'd really want to opt-out?  The bank can still charge a fee for non-sufficient funds (NSF) and whoever was expecting the payment may also charge you late fees and service fees.  It's much better just to make sure that you don't overdraw through careful planning." It might be illegal for the very reason you stated: The process of printing checks may seem like check forgery. Banks in the US are allowed to do that, and the only condition under which you can do it with your iPhone (again, in the US) is the same as the one for banks: you can produce the original check on demand. Of course, if the whole thing is legit and no-one is going to dispute the check (=no-one will demand the original from you), it might work (legal issues aside). It works in the US. Beware of several things: It might not work. Banks can demand the original. If you can't produce one on demand, especially if the transaction is reported as fraudulent, you may get into a lot of trouble. Photocopying checks might not be legal in your jurisdiction (you're not in the US, you need to check local laws). Photocopying checks may result in images that cannot be deposited (like the word VOID appearing all around). That doesn't usually happen when taking a snapshot with an iPhone, but it happens (seen that myself, when scanned checks for records) if you're scanning. Deposit by scan/picture is usually limited to low amounts (I know that Chase limits it at several hundreds, I had troubles depositing $2K checks with them through the phone). No, there is no downside. I personally don't use duplicate checks.  I simply make a record of the checks I write in the check register.  A copy of the check, whether a duplicate or a photo, isn't really proof of payment for anyone but yourself, as it is very easy to write a check after the fact and put a different date on it. "Changed to answer match the edited version of the question No, you do not need to write the date of your endorsement, but you can choose to do so if you want to. The bank stamp on the back will likely have the date and perhaps even the exact time when the check was  deposited. The two lines are there in case you want to write something like ""For deposit only to Acct# uvwxyz"" above your signature (always a good idea if you are making the deposit by sending the paper check (with or without a deposit slip) by US mail or any other method that doesn't involve you handing the check to a bank teller). If you are wanting to get encash the check, that is, get cash in return for handing the check over to the bank instead of depositing the check in your account, then the rules are quite a bit different." You probably can't deposit the check directly, but there are mechanisms in place to get your money through other means. In the US, all states and territories have an unclaimed property registry. Before you contact the company that wrote the check, you should check that registry in your state. You will have to provide proof that you are the intended recipient, having the original check in your possession should make that considerably easier. "In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.”  If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved.  The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional ""and..."" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it." Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it.  It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal.  I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank.  In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID.  You don't even technically have to be there.  Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business. "Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth.  The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to ""blow the money."" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing.  The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate.  When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2.  Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer."