[coldtea]

The child should be supported by a minimum livable amount (part of its rent + food + education + expenses). Instead there are crazy amounts based on the lifestyle the spouse was used to.

Funnily, if you were rich and go broke, you don't get to ask welfare or an employee to give you a salary based on the "lifestyle you were used to".

[giraffe_lady]

Again it's based on what the child was used to. Y'all are hyper fixated on the spouse I'm getting heavy reddit vibes here I'm expecting to start hearing about hypergamy and age of consent any minute now.

[coldtea]

>Again it's based on what the child was used to

So? Why should the child get "what it was used to" and not a mere comfortamble amount? Especially if the father had a change of luck and makes less post-divorce?

I don't see any concern for kids from families that have not gone through divorce, but have gone broke or bankrupt. I don't see the state or anyone coming to pay them money to "maintain their lifestyle".

Why is this "lifestyle maintainance" only applicable to kids of divorced parents?

And why are children who started life poor less deserving of such money? They're just as capable as kids from rich parents to "get used" to a more luxurious lifestyle, they just never had the chance.

[giraffe_lady]

I actually am concerned about all of those things! Everyone should have their needs met, at the expense of those who have more than enough to meet their needs.

It's not really relevant to this conversation though, which is about the children of divorced parents, and how we've chosen to mediate their rights under the current system.

The problem with what I think you're proposing is who gets to decide what is a reasonable minimum amount for a given area? or a comfortable amount? Have you seen the poverty line calculations, or the asset limitations on disabled people? The state is not good at carrying this responsibility.

The current system leaves it up to the parents. Not what the parents say they want post-separation, but how they actually acted. That's why it's based on pre-split allocations.

[coldtea]

>It's not really relevant to this conversation though, which is about the children of divorced parents, and how we've chosen to mediate their rights under the current system.

Things are to be examined in context, relatively to similar concerns, and to societies priorities and decisions at large, not as isolated domains. At the very least one should ask why this class of people deserves more than another, why their "lifestyle level" is relevant and is not for other cases and so on.

>The problem with what I think you're proposing is who gets to decide what is a reasonable minimum amount for a given area?

The area shouldn't matter. Use minimum wage as a calculation. If they kid is supposed to live on that while working their ass off as an adult, they can live on that as a kid too, especially since they still have a parent they live with to supplement that. If minimum wage is too low, the lawmakers should raise it for adults too.

[lwelyk]

> Why is this "lifestyle maintainance" only applicable to kids of divorced parents?

Because there are vindictive people who try to tank their own income because they hate their ex. I had a boss who tanked his prior company to do this.

[fps]

Then the child should stay with the parent most able to provide for them. The big issue a lot of people have with the inequity of child support is that fathers who want custody of their kids are continually denied it by the state.

Involved, stay-at-home, full time fathers are given at best 50% custody and then a hefty child support obligation and told to go out and get a job. Uninvolved mothers are given primary custody by default and then collect a massive paycheck as a result.