[giantg2]

The main problem I see with this is finances. It will cost more for two people living separately than together.

I strongly believe that most divorces would logically and financially require the existing house to be sold so that two smaller/cheaper residences can be bought or rented. This is espesially important to financial stability in instances where child support is dictated by an arbitrary formula (which tends to produce an unrealilistic amount) rather than the actual needs of the children, or where finances were already somewhat tight (most cases?).

[candiodari]

We live in a democracy and clearly, no, this isn't what people want. They want people to not lose any living standard over something "they can't help" like a divorce, and of course all animals are equal but some are more equal (kids and women). This money is not allowed to come from the state or justice system so it must come from the only source it can come from: whoever actually earns money.

So if you divorce, you should immediately become a total deadbeat, be broke and unemployed, ideally well on the way to homeless, by the time the trial happens. In contact with social services. Because men ALSO can't lose living standard. You won't get as much, because of course the justice system is sexist, but they're forced to give you something. Obviously the justice system cannot prevent this from happening. They may respond by placing the kid in foster care.

The net result of these laws: whoever is willing to most seriously damage the kid will have a decisive advantage.

[giantg2]

My wife's father got divorced and had a high paying job, so he was required to pay a lot of child support. He was in a car accident which resulted in him being in a coma for months. Since he wasn't making money during that time in the hospital, his bank account was emptied and the court issued an arrest warrant since the child support was not being paid. He lost his job and was never able to get a new one. He's now living on food stamps and waiting to reach the social security age. The family court system ruined his life.

[candiodari]

It didn't just ruin his life, odds are pretty good it will have seriously damaged the life of the child and other parent as well by suddenly taking away that income, and by damaging the whole family further by taking slow, violent action. All of which impose extra costs on the person that was supposed to care for others. Actions that did not just destroy that person, but also the money and the care it bought for the child ...

[giantg2]

In this case money and the child's living condition wasn't an issue since her mother started a high paying job too. But yes, there's added stress to this day because he's constantly in need of something, including housing.