[waste_monk]

>That sounds like a plaintiff's perspective when there is no concern for the welfare of the other parent.

It would be more accurate to say that the court prioritises the welfare of the child above that of the parents.

That is, the system (in theory) should enforce that the child recieves the same level of support and standard of living as it would if the parents had not separated.

Judges take a very dim view of parents trying to escape their support obligations, as if they were allowed to do so it ultimately only hurts the child.

[ENGNR]

Is this reasonable though? Going from one household to two households raises expenses. People also just go through bad times, mental troubles, skills atrophy. Even just not seeing your kids might make someone lose the will to get up early and give it all they’ve got for another decade.

Is it really fair that previously they got to work hard to buy their kid nice things, but now they must work hard to buy them nice things or go to jail?

[waste_monk]

>Is this reasonable though? Going from one household to two households raises expenses. People also just go through bad times, mental troubles, skills atrophy.

These sorts of things are accounted for when calculating child support obligations, and in any case judges are not computers and can use their discretion in such matters. As long as you're operating in good faith you shouldn't have any issues. I was specifically referring to incidents where someone is wilfully disobeying the child support order, such as by quitting their job to work for cash 'under the table' so they don't have any official income to garnish.

>Is it really fair that previously they got to work hard to buy their kid nice things, but now they must work hard to buy them nice things or go to jail?

It's not about buying nice things, it's about making sure the child is not disadvantaged by the separation of the parents. That means keeping the same standard of food availability, clothing, access to education, and so on.

Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because one of their parents decided that they would prefer not to pay child support? Or be forced to change schools and lose their social group because tuition is unaffordable on a single income?

[imtringued]

>Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because one of their parents decided that they would prefer not to pay child support?

This is backwards. You're ignoring that the divorce has to be initiated in the first place and that divorce usually results in the removal of custody by the father and thereby creates an obligation to pay child support on the side of the father. Therefore divorce is causal. A desire to not pay child support does not lead to a child having to give up after school sports in the absence of divorce.

So let's replace what you said with reality:

>Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because their parents divorced? Or be forced to change schools and lose their social group because tuition is unaffordable on a single income?

Yes it is fair, because the divorce was initiated despite the expectation of these outcomes. If a man or woman initiates divorce, they must have had a good reason to do so and we should not question that reason by arguing that school sports or tuition are more important than the reason for divorce.

[waste_monk]

>You're ignoring that the divorce has to be initiated in the first place

Correct. My point is that the child should receive the same standard of living regardless of the dispute between parents.

>Yes it is fair, because the divorce was initiated despite the expectation of these outcomes. If a man or woman initiates divorce, they must have had a good reason to do so and we should not question that reason by arguing that school sports or tuition are more important than the reason for divorce.

Parents may divorce and have whatever disputes they like, but it is not fair for one parent to deprive the child of support and resources that they would otherwise receive because of a dispute with the other parent.

[ty6853]

>it is not fair for one parent to deprive the child of support and resources that they would otherwise receive because of a dispute with the other parent.

Only in a rather crazy partnership is that the case. My child's resources and support absolutely fluctuate with my actual income, preferences, and obligations and as a compromise of financial disputes.

Recently I built a house instead of working, willfully drastically lowering my income to 0. The child had all the necessities met, but anything beyond was less plentiful than before and we had to cook frugal foods. The child was not neglected or abused so nothing illegal, but standard of living significantly lowered. It is fair that the child's standard of living lowers with the parents, but your system would have me a criminal were it I didn't have custody.

It doesn't make sense that married people can willfully lower standard of living but non custodial parents cannot. The standard should be the same uniformly but were it the case it would be voted down, thus is a case of the majority buying a sense of smug moral imposition at no cost to themselves against the evil divorcing sinners, to the great benefit of family law practices who often ruthlessly pursue it for profit.

[mattzito]

> It doesn't make sense that married people can willfully lower standard of living but non custodial parents cannot.

Of course it does - because both parents are responsible for the welfare of the children, and so if they both decide that they want to lower the standard of living that is a shared/joint agreement.

If the non-custodial parent decides they want to lower their child's standard of living, a) that is a unilateral decision, and b) they (the non-custodial parent) don't have to bear the implications of that lowered standard of living.

> your system would have me a criminal were it I didn't have custody.

Yes, sadly, having children means that sometimes you lack flexibility and can't make the decisions you would like to make.

[imtringued]

>It would be more accurate to say that the court prioritises the welfare of the child above that of the parents.

That's not true. The welfare of the child is already destroyed by separating the child from one of its parents. If the court prioritized the welfare of the child, then it would give out 50:50 custody by default, with the non-custodial parent having to consent to child support to avoid custody.

[waste_monk]

Sometimes there is no perfect solution. The court also has to take practicality into consideration.

The welfare of the child is often best served by allocating custody such that a child can stay at one residence most of the time (with regular visitation to the other parent to maintain the relationship), so that the stability of the child's living situation is not disturbed by having to constantly switch between two residences, having their school routine and social life disrupted, etc.

Also, custody split is only part of the issue. Supposing parent A earns 2x parent B's income, they should still be paying child support even if custody is 50:50, so that the same standard is maintained across both households.