[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by floslib

If we're going to keep child support, the system needs to be redone a bit. The biggest thing that needs to change is that courts need to stop getting a cut of the money, so they will start ruling fairly on child support cases. After that, we do need to account for everyone's needs. You are right when you say the child's needs outweigh the needs of the parent though.

That said, I think child support should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Child support should only be paid out when it will significantly improve the child's situation. Furthermore, the custodial parent should still be required to have a job or other means of earning income, or be working hard to find one (When remarried or with other similar arrangements, the current partner of the custodial parent may have this job instead if that is their agreement.). They should not just live off the child support payments of the other parent. If the child support won't make a difference in the child's circumstances, it shouldn't be paid out.

Every statistic I've seen shows that single mothers drop into poverty at an alarming rate, and divorced fathers enjoy increased income.

So, whatever the systemic faults of the system, the net result is that child support being paid in the system is not sufficient. The most obvious conclusion would be that the payments are generally too low. That doesn't have anything to do with court costs.

I'm not sure what you're driving at in cases where child support won't significantly improve the child's situation. Are you saying that where the mother and the father both earn $100,000, it is fair for the mother not only to do the bulk of the work to raise the child, but also shoulder the full cost?

As to employment of the mother, I think it's good for children and everyone for adults to be self-sufficient. However, the welfare mother living on child support isn't going to be making much money: her increased earnings are going to be offset by a daycare cost as she begins work, so this will be at best a wash for the father for younger children. For older children, it is more of a problem - but the "solution" of cutting off money to the kids isn't any more fair than the circumstances that lead to the problem.

Also, if child support will make that much of a difference, it ought to be considered that perhaps the parent who can afford the child support payments ought to have primary custody instead of the one who can't.

Because the commitment of raising a child tends to limit one's job advancement and job commitments interfere with parenting, it will more often be the case that the person with the higher income is going to be the noncustodial parent.

In addition, if deceit or trickery are involved from either party, this should also be considered when it comes time to rule on child support. It won't be the only thing taken into account, as that would be unfair to the child, but it does still need to be addressed.

I don't know who could sort this out, or would want to: the woman goes to court and says the guy is a cheapskate, and the man says she went off the pill on purpose without telling him. Apart from this squabble about what was told to whom on one Saturday night, which can almost never be resolved by evidence, the child remains dependent for 18 years.