Who receive CS in an amount more than a prorata cost of housing, utilities and food.  Where I live, many people pay a lot to get into a good school district.  If I did nto care about getting into a good school district, I would pay appreicably less for housing.  

... are only in it for the money (ahem, "Revenue") and to expand their annual budgets. 

Don't believe the hype that they're at all "For the children." I worked on the inside of the CS system at a very high-level for five years, saw it all. Including but not limited to CS agency directors cheating on their spouses with each other at CS training & legislative conferences. No joke.

I resigned in disguest. 

I agree the CS system needs an overhaul for sure...especially when you are paying money to a felon with no household bills because they are squatting with mommy and daddy and blowing that money straight into their arm.

I think that both parents should need to work unless agreed upon... It's really not right for one parent to decide to be unemployed and expect the other to make up for it. The other is now part of a new family. 

I also think it shouldn't go past 18, or graduated high school, whichever comes last. Post that parents should be able to choose the amount of support like any from an "in-tact" family.

In 50/50 I think CS should be fairly eliminated. Same as an in-tact family, it's now based on how well a parent does for themselves, there are ALWAYS going to be differences between households. I don't believe one parent should make up for the other's shortcomings. Both parents should have motivation to better themselves for a better quality of life.

Naturally there are exceptions, such as, if one parent put their life on hold to stay at home and now requires school for a job, however I think there should be a cap on that to avoid a potenital "forever student" just to avoid the end of CS.

I also think that parents should be required to show that the CS is spent ON THE KIDS in the even the event there is CS so that the NCP is actually contributing to the children and not some crazy CP wants.

I'm not sure there's a perfect answer as far as CS goes though. THere are so many variables. maybe the real thing CS needs is for it to stop being treated like a cookie cutter and actually make an effort to look at something situationally. Such as a parent refusing to work, should not get unlimited CS to supplement their lazy efforts, instead they should still have it calculated based off working, possibly even higher than minimum wage (that can be revisited if they actually get a job, even at minimum wage) to motivate a parent to better themselves for the good of their children. 

Support. I have worked my hiney off at my company and I am set to make $120,000 a year when I am done with training. My job is super stressful and it means nights, weekends and holidays. I took this promotion cause I have four daughters who are super smart and do well in school and I had zero saved for college. I used to have prepaid college plans but when I got divorced I could no longer afford them. I took this job solely to put my four daughters through college and not to supplement my exes income. I know they won't contribute to college and I am going to be super fing pissed off if they take me to court for child support cause I make so much more money than they do 

I think the whole system needs to be overhauled. The worksheets and calculators are just too limited to really figure out how much a custodial parent needs to support a child. Really in many cases I don’t think child support should exist at all and only encourages uneven parenting time. Of course if you’ve got a non-custodial parent who never exercises their visitation rights or makes an exceptionally large amount more than the other parent it’s different but in most cases what ends up happening is the noncustodial parent has the exact same expenses while subsidizing the custodial parent’s home at the cost of their home.

For example just because BM get’s more time doesn’t mean our living expenses are much less. We still have to pay rent on a larger apartment since he exercise regular visitation but because we’re subsidizing BM’s home, unlike her home the children have to share a room with us. We still need a car just the same as she does and so those expenses are similar. We still provide food and all basic needs when they are with us and so on. Hell in our case our expenses are more because BM lives rent free. She pays for less food then us because the children get free breakfast and lunch at the school. She provides 5 meals a week while we do 6.

Let’s also include default ruling is that the noncustodial parent provides insurance for the kids which can easily be a hundred or so a month and then custodial parent gets to claim the children on taxes getting thousands of dollars more each year.

In our case BM gets off working less than 40 hours a week because SO has to pay her a 3rd of his check. In turn my partner wouldn’t be able to provide a home suitable for visitation if he wasn’t with me.  BM is just as capable as he is in terms of what they make but because of child support she has the ability to have a larger home, new car, and can waste a ton of money each week on going out drinking with her friends. I’m not saying she shouldn’t get to have fun and every penny she makes has to go to the kids but in our case that’s exactly what would happen to my partner if he were alone.

I hear crap that if the noncustodial parent can’t afford things because of child support they should just take a second job or whatever but that comes at the cost of visitation time with the children and upon doing so BM gets and even more child support. Why should a non-custodial parent have to work multiple jobs if the custodial parent isn’t required to do the same and in some cases doesn’t work at all.

Basically child support is broken. I saw someone post something that one of the biggest issues is that child support is calculated so that the custodial parent doesn’t experience any chance in standard of living after a divorce. That’s bull. Just because they keep control of the kids the other parent’s standard of living is drastically reduced. BOTH parents should shoulder that burden.

I think the CS system is terribly broken, but sadly, I have no good solution, in large part because individual situations are so different and there's no one way to "fix" things so they're fair and the kids are taken care of.  I do think that there should be a financial price to pay for a CP who withholds visitation, though. It chaps my hide that visitation and CS are totally separate things.

My SO and BM have 50/50 custody with no CS going either way.  SO makes more (not a whole lot more - if BM tried to get CS she'd get less than $200/mo) and voluntarily pays more of the extras - school supplies, clothes, ECs.  We would not be happy if BM got CS, because she is not working full time.  She could make as much as SO, she just chooses not to.  It's not an issue between them because there's no CS, but it would be if he had to subsidize her decision to work fewer hours.

I recognize the need for CS, but I think it causes problems that wouldn't exist in its absence.  For instance, I watch the kids while SO and BM work.  I'm home during those hours and I don't mind at all.  I do it on both his days and her days.  If he had to pay her CS, there is NO WAY I would watch the kids for her on her days.  Similarly, we take the kids almost any time she asks - if she has a date or is going away for a weekend or whatever.  She reciprocates, but we rarely ask and definitely have them more.  If he was paying CS based on having them a certain percentage of the time, we wouldn't want to provide her date night/weekend away babysitting at no cost (since he'd be paying for her to have them during that time), even though we're happy to have the kids for extra time.  Not paying CS definitely makes it easier to cooperate.  I don't know how parents who pay child support and then see their kids in ratty clothes, without socks, underwear and winter coats, do it.  I'd be a shrieking shrew if I saw that.

By using pre taxed money. So you get a 30% raise in pay because you have CS.  Medical is pre tax money because you deduct medical expenses on your income tax. Nothing wrong with setting up a fair CS system.

again we can fight for the next 20 years to what is fair.  Those giving, and those receiving, have vastly different ideals of what is fair.  CS is to be used for that child to live, it goes to rent, utilities, clothing, medical, food. Vacations.  As any child in an family where parents are not divorce.  

No CS exchanged.  Custody goes to the parent who is better off financially. CS is a wealth redistribution scheme.  Throw in greedy, alienating ex spouses set on revenge, corrupt attorneys and out of touch "false chivalry" judges, not to mention fed kickbacks to local CSEUs for highest amount extorted and the whole system needs to be scrapped but never will due to the fact it's making the system and lobbyists rich.

I am a former SM and a BM. I would like to say after not receiving CS for 8 plus years I am grateful the system did finally catch up with my ex.  He stalked me, harrassed and threatened me, and eventually kidnapped our children attempting to enter Canada.  All the money I am currently receivng is going into an undisclosed savings account for my children for their future.  I was never one not to work.  Most of these Bms are vile, I know personally I dealt with one, but every story has two sides.  And I am well aware most of you lovely ladies would not be here venting if not the case. On a different note, the only wisdom I can pass on to younger women is to RUN from any man with children and an ex.  Yes, I know that's harsh.  But I'm not sure there is a happily ever after for all of us.  Perhaps, we are our own knights in shining armour.  

SD's BM is borderline.  Giving her CS is like dropping money down a never ending hole of darkness.  Nothing to show for it, and never really quite sure where it went.

I am ok with the CS Dh is paying right now to BM. However, once BM finally sends her taxes to the attorney's (she was supposed to have them to our attorney no later than Dec 20th and still hasn't done it) things will change and I will be pissed. DH is currently paying just under $600, plus health, dental, vision, and 70% of any co-pays. Thankfully due to being military those costs are very small. We also pay 100% of all travel costs- which since BM moved SS away from DH, I find that horribly unfair, but if it was up to her she would never send him anyway. BUT… since things are going like they are for us, she might just get her wish after this spring break.

I get $1000 for 2 kids. I also am taking over $300 less than the calculator states and after my ex makes his move, his new salary increases substantially - I will probably be taking closer to $800 less than what would be calculated. However, I still make a good salary and am perfectly capable of taking care of my kids. It wasn’t always that way though. I put my career on hold to follow him around in the military and be a SAHM for a few years. Not many employers want someone who moves every 2-3 years. Since we separated almost 9 years ago now, I have been able to do more for myself, but it was a slow start. The extra money does allow us to be in one of the top 3% of school districts in the country. My kids are also well dressed and can participate in the sports they want to play (and with a son who loves golf... that is a pricey one!). My ex and his wife do realize that I have accepted less CS, therefore when it comes to things like back to school shopping or new sports equipment they will spilt some of those costs or rotate who is buying cleats and things with me. It works but I am not a crazy BM... so there is that. 

I don't feel that I should have to itemize out what in my budget goes to the kids. They have clothes, they have shoes, they have food, I pack their dang lunches everyday. They are in sports, they have everything they need, many of the things they want. I realize that some BM's are dirtbags. However, putting those restrictions on the entire system would be very frustrating. Honestly the difference of my 4bd home in the town we live in VS the 1 bedroom apartment I would need, if I didn't have my children, in the next town over is more than the child support I get anyway. 

The CS system would be instantly fixed if the custody system was improved. It should be default 50/50 with no CS unless there is a good reason one parent can't or shouldn't have that much custody. This one, simple change would create a domino of benefits for children and families. 

I disagree!

My ex didn't pay me a red cent for alomst 3 years and owed me darn near $19,000! Therefore, all of MY hard earned money had to go towards 100% of the things the children needed. When I do happen to get some CS, I should be able to spend it on anything needed OR wanted without having to prove it was strictly for the children. Nobody was there asking when it was just my money. That would be a BIG HELL NO!