Preaching to the world its ridclous that judges thinks dads should have to pay to make life equal at moms which more often then not actual just puts the dad in a worse financial position and thus still not equal and the whole could earn more thing is crap. So could BM but she only works part time and the judge doesn't give a shit

It will never be reformed.   Too many pockets are being lined with the system the way it is.  From divorce attorneys to "family" court officials, to CS Enforcement Agencies, to powerful lobbying groups such as NOW (sadly)

Notice there are no Parenting Time Enforcement Agencies which should tell you everything you need to know.

The impoverished father via CS indentured servant scenario is far too common.  A big reason why these fathers are on the lookout for potential SMs with an income of their own.

One way or another,  SM inadvertently props up this system, usually by becoming financial backer to NCP biodad or, in the rare event that the BM completely abdicates parenting, surrogate, yet unappreciated mother.

I do think that 50/50 should be the standard with no child support - provided one parent isn't making a lot more than what the other one does. In a marriage, if one partner were making 10x the other one, he/she would pay more towards bills and it should be the same with CS.  So to avoid sexism, if Dad makes 60K and Mom makes 300K, Mom should pay more towards the child's care.  This is the situation that child support was set to avoid in the past - women with no job and no earning potential left to support children while their higher earning exes got off scot-free.

Believe it or not, statistics still show that after a divorce, women end up living in much worse circumstances than men do. In general, they have lower paying jobs than men do, and are left to care for the home and the children (most men don't go for 50/50). I know it feels like a lot going out, but an extra $800 a month isn't exactly living high on the hog for a woman who is making way less than her ex-husband and caring for a kid or two or three.

I do think women should be expected to work and support of children should be calculated based on their contribution. But in general, it's more common for men to do better after a divorce than women do financially. We don't see that because we are generally women married to men with high-conflict exes who take and take and take - and are in the minority if our household is suffering.

I will get flack for this, but I also think the reality is that men with children from another marriage go into a new marriage with some debt -child support - and they have to plan for that. They may not be able to buy the house the want or have as many more kids as they want, just as if they had student loan debt. There are some choices to be made there, too. 

https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/hr250gao.pdf

There are a multitude of ways, in my opinion, that could help fix, or truly equalize, the system.

First would be to treat CS like you do an HSA. For our friends outside the US, an HSA is a health savings account. You can put money in to the account pre-tax when you have high-deductible health insurance. The money remains tax-free so long as you spend the money on health care expenses. You keep receipts in case you get audited. Pretty simple stuff.

CS could be structured much the same. If it's paid through paycheck, it's pre-tax (an incentive for folks to use CSE). The receiver of CS can spend it on the kids, but needs to maintain receipts. If they spend it on something not related to the child, they get hit with a 20% tax penalty. If the money isn't all spent by 18 (or whenever the kid ages out), it either is released to the kid or is returned to the payer.

There are flaws with this approach, but it would help fix the issue of paying parents not having any recourse when the CS they pay doesn't meet the needs of the kids. It can also help calculate CS more closely to what an individual "family" needs versus some arbitrary number that impoverishes payers. The government would be losing tax money, so they'll be incentivized to not order large amounts of CS over what it costs to actually care for a child. This may also push CPs to be more giving with parenting time when they realize they aren't going to get oodles and oodles more money just because the kids are with the NCP less because their individual account will be audited and the burden of proof for needing more cash will be on them to prove.

Another way would be automatic 50/50 with no CS, or a gradient of CS that becomes less and less as time goes on. I get if you were a SAHP whose spouse left you that you'll need support to get up and going. However, if you get divorced when the kids are in elementary school, by the time they are in high school, you shouldn't still need $1K-2K per month with 50/50 custody. You should have been able to build up your skills enough to provide a good lifestyle for your kids.

Now, if you are the SAHP who leaves your spouse, and the reasoning wasn't because you were being abused or harmed (you just weren't happy), then I think those cases need to be mediated with the baseline being that the SAHP will be the NCP. It's a poor life decision to leave your spouse just because you're unhappy when you have no income, and heinous to do it because you know the courts will grant you custody and a fat CS check (and possibly alimony). The burden needs to rest on them to prove they have a plan to actually take care of their children most of the time. And throughout any of this, if the higher earner doesn't want more visitation and would rather just pay larger CS, they should have that option.

One final idea would be to tie CS to visitation. If you have a 50/50 split, then BOTH parents have an obligation to take their time. Parents shouldn't be allowed to withhold visitation or dump their kids on the other parent without having a financial penalty attached. If you withhold visitation, you need to pay back CS for the days you withheld. If you dump and run, you need to pay for the days you didn't have them. Yes, this wouls be a nightmare to monitor, and prissy witches would come storming into court over one day. But, I think there are ways to make it work.

No matter how CS is reformed (it won't be, but let's think positive), BOTH parents need to be expected to work. If a parent doesn't work and their new partner is supporting them, then I think it's entirely fair to use the new partner's income to calculate CS or determine the parenting schedule. While that sounds like punishment for a SP, it's actually a protection. It forces SPs to really think about their contribution and decide if they really, REALLY want to be involved. There will still be folks who do, but my guess is that as the first few cases of SPs being ordered to pay CS roll out, more and more SP will be looking at their situation thinking "do I really want this?" and more and more married couples will think "is divorce going to be worth it?"

WE've always done 50/50 and no child support.  That was our choice.  I now make a lot of money.  To keep things fair, I pay for all the over and abocve expenses like braces.  I'll buy them their cars and pay for their car insurance.  I'll also be the one to pay for college.  If I had to turn around and give him money, then there would be no college fund for them. 

     I think child support is unfair.  DD's dad paid North Korea $1000 a month and half of everything.  He had $10 left over a month to his name and she went on massive spending sprees.  She bought horse trailers and barns and round pens.  She bought those Gsator utility vehicles and a camper and a boat.  She bought the 10 acres next door.  She completely remodeled her home and put in a pool.  She went on lots of expensive vacations and got lots of plastic surgery.  I know there was no car insurance or college funds for her girls and sometimes she didn't have the money for SD's insulin and I would have to buy it. There was a financial discovery done when she asked for even more child support and she did this after the older SD aged out (like an idiot).  It turns out she was 80,000 in debt and her child support was knocked in half and then went away completedly 9 months later.  She has no retirement whatsoever, not even social security cause she is a hair dresser and tells the IRS that she makes zero dollars every year.  So she might have had a good decade of living high on the hog but those days are thankfully over for her.  

I share this once in awhile about cs. Although it is about 4 years old, it is still on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=196XCAXfqrI&t=5s

Title 4d funding is a huge problem. So, in order to fix cs,  title 4d funding must be completely removed and re-thought.

**which by the way was originally for custodial parent who needed STATE welfare/ Now it has taken on a mind of it's own.

From my experience, Custody should default to 50/50. This seems to be the biggest issue, from my reading and group posts on here and Facebook.

Secondly is Enforcement. It is currently just not really happening. This would cover BOTH the folks who are not getting what they were awarded for child support, but also those that withhold the visitation.

Thirdly, the Child support calculations and judgements give judges WAY TOO MUCH POWER. There doesnt seem to be much oversight and accountability for these judges. They do what they want, when they want.

Fourth. Education. Who here really knew what the heck they were getting into when they decided to date and then have a relationship and then marry someone with children from a previous relationship? I certainly did not. And it wasnt until almost 4 years ago, when I was so miserable and upset all the time, that I sought out help and knowledge and understanding. At that point I was almost 3 years in, fighting all the time with my then SO, not really knowing what the heck was going on just knowing it wasnt right. I was also in a vulnerable place due to no job, and all that.

I think that more people should seek this information BEFORE getting involved. And more information should be out there. Counselors specialising in this stuff. Should be part of their curriculum. Its been long enough that this has become more "common". But its also common enough knowledgefor people to have learned how to work whatever systems are out there, for their benefit.

I definitely think that the days of automatically putting a BIAS for the woman as primary parent and primary recipient of CS is fading.  Certainly, women have a much more improved outlook on employment and earnings.  Single income dual parent homes are a lot rarer.. though they do exist.  We have SAHM's on this site!  But, as we know, the playing field is nowhere near level.. neither in family courts.. nor in the workplace.  For this reason, there is likely to be to some extent the scenario where if one parent stays home.. it's likely to be the lower earning potential woman... and therefor when you get to family court... they may be inclined to perpetuate her being the primary caregiver parent while continuing the idea that the man should continue to pay a larger or majority share of the cost of raising those kids.

And.. to an extent.. that is not wholly distasteful really.  The reality is that when the "doctor" decides to have kids with the "nursery school teacher".. it's pretty clear who might be the one to stay home if it can be afforded... because.. yes, it is really to a child's benefit to be raised by parents vs caretakers in most situations.... but that means that one person has exited the workforce.. and when they had those children.. that higher earning partner made a conscious decision that they would be covering not only all the family expenses.. Now, if they divorce.. that does not necessarily mean that they should be on the hook for permanent SPOUSAL support.. as there should be some expectation that their EX could begin to support themselves at some point.. but do their obligations to cover the costs of their children really change..?  

And in cases where there is a huge disparity in earning potential.. we would assume to the lowest earning potential.. knowing that makes the Dr Warbucks able to use their wealth as a carrot to curry favor with their children?  I think that's why they do try to semi-equalize it per child expenses... so that can't be done as drastically.

There are always going to be unfair situations.. but 5050 unless there were significant reasons to do otherwise.. and no CS as long as both parties have reasonably similar incomes should the status quo.   I also like the HSA option where the recipient has to spend money on food/housing/medical/supplies/for their children might be good.. but I think it would not be difficult to skirt that for many by just paying their full mortgage with CS.. then using money that would have gone towards that for their frivolous things.