Personally I think 50/50 with no child support should be the norm. If one parent wants to move, then they revert to normal custody schedule & CS. But hey, that would take all the fun out of the court system.

I think, ideally, primary custody should go to the more stable parent, and visitation to the less stable parent. but peoples situations can change quickly, and it would be a shame to be shuffling kids back and forth everytime someone's situation changes.

I also don't think it should be solely based on money. That really puts a disadvantage on sahms, as they obviously won't be able to jump back into the work force and immediately be making as much as their ex whose been working all along. Or a mom whose let her career take a backseat to focus on the family more, will probably make less than the ex who focuses on his career.

I think that whomever has been the primary caregiver should retain primary custody unless other factors make it in the child interest to have it otherwise.

As for cs.... If its a custodial parent/visitation parent arraingment, then yeah the visitation parent should pay half of the child's expenses. If its a joint custody situation, then I don't agree with child support. But that would cause shitty parent to fight for more visitation/custody just avoid paying cs, so that's no good either.

I don't think there is a good answer out there. Even taking it as a case by case, its too easy to put up a front, or lie about your ex in court....there would be just as many injustices as there are now. The court system doesn't have the time or resources to be devoting a ton of energy into each and every case to get to the essential truth of the situation.

i think that there should be a psych evaluation during mediation/court and the more stable household should get PC i dont think that money should be an issue yes it would be nice if the mentally sane parent made the most money but in the end money doesnt buy sanity just pills to help you fake it