I agree. This schedule sucks and CS is often based on overnights. My SO's BM2 does that, too. Has him keep the kid until bedtime, but she gets credit for the "overnight" amd therefore gets paid for it. 

I've always said that CS needs to be taxed or the CS recipient should have to show it as income on taxes and the payor should have it taken off of their adjusted gross income. There needs to be some benefit for the payors - like a child tax credit, even if they can't claim their kids as dependents. Maybe like a tax write-off. 

My DH pays $750 per month in court ordered CS for SS9,  which I know it could be much worse. DH makes average money, not great but not terrible, but after CS, taxes, and health insurance, he only brings home about $900 biweekly and that includes 10-20 hours of overtime per week. This leaves me picking up the slack on household expenses. DH is incredibly hard working and is always looking for ways to grow and advance, but the necessary deductions take a huge chunk of his income. BM is making close to double what DH makes and lives with her GF who makes hefty six figures. They recently bought a house, both of them drive brand new luxury cars, and they travel a lot. BM has admitted to DH that she uses her CS to buy herself stuff and pay her student loans and "get ahead", yet, BM loves to tell DH that he is such a deadbeat and a loser because we have to live in an apartment because we cannot yet afford a house and we drive older cars. DH and I have finally saved a decent chunk for a nice down-payment on a house and would like to buy one next year. BM has told DH in the past that she isn't comfortable with SS being with us often because we cannot provide the same standard of living that SS is used to in BM's home... well DUH, wonder why that is?! We have a nice two bedroom apartment in a nice, safe area. SS has his own room with a nice bedroom set and plenty of toys and clothes, but it doesn't nearly equate to the 3,000 square foot 5-bed, 4-bath monstrosity that BM has. 

While I totally believe in supporting your children, I think the CS system is broken and needs a major revamp. I know this will never happen because too many agencies are getting a nice kick-back, but the current system allows CS recipients to alienate and abuse the payors by weaponizing the children and the payors can rarely support themselves and are essentially imprisoned by the CS system. 

But... yes.. of course watching money go out of your home that you can't control the spending of is tough.. your DH has a double whammy of CS and alimony.. so it adds up to a lot.  If the kids were in your home FT.. there would be a whole set of other issues.. but he could decide to budget differently.. he can't control how BM spends.  and I get that is frustrating.

I understand this to a point. I think where CS goes off the rails is when it assumes that an NCP is a deadbeat who isn't involved with their kids or doesn't treat their kids like a member of the household.

NCPs still have to have enough bedrooms for their kids. Still have to pay more in food and utilities when the kids are over. Still have to spend gas to go to kid activities, appointments, school events, etc (even when they don't have the kid). Still have to supply toiletries, clothes, shoes, supplies, etc (if the kid doesn't bring that stuff back and forth). Still have to have toys and entertainment. And kids outgrow all of that stuff just as fast at the NCPs as the CPs.

I'll grant that it's not the same as a CP, but an involved and active NCP is paying to maintain their kid's standard of living in BOTH homes, not just the CPs. I think judges who allow COs like what OP's DH has are just as unjust as those who sign off on orders allowing NCPs to not pay CS (or who don't enforce consequences when they don't pay their COed CS). The courts need to focus less on giving kids the same standard of living pre-divorce because what ends up happening is kids living that same standard 70-80% of the time and living in poverty or not having proper visitation or having miserable experiences the other 20-30% of the time because the NCP is sucked dry financially and can't provide any sort of life even close to what they had before. That is so easy to weaponize, and courts would be better served finding out what a NEW standard of living should look like and seeing how that is financially viable via CS.

Also, while CPs aren't getting rich (typically) of CS, they are living comfortably. Their standard of living may decrease, but should generally be stabilized. For NCPs, it's a crapshoot. Losing $14,000/yr when you make $70,000 hurts but is survivable. Losing $10,000 a year at $50,000, though, puts you near poverty with multiple kids. And working more isn't a solution, either, because that just increases the CS obligation. That extra just makes the CP more stable without any additional work, while the NCP is more tired with more stability in total but less than what they worked for.

This isn't directed entirely at you, ESMOD. I'm just making the counterpoint to this. CS was meant to keep single mothers out of poverty (and off government assistance) but never adjusted for changes in societal roles or even inflation outpacing wages. I'm not saying NCPs shouldn't pay CS, but there needs to be more consideration about what taking 20% out of an active NCPs paycheck does to them AND their kids.

Pathetic. One of SO's BMs is like that. Collects on one kid who she hasn't kept in years and on another that mostly just sleeps there on her nights. She has purses worth 3 of my mortgage payments and only drives Lexuses and Mercedes. There really ahould be some accounting for CS. My SO also pays for everything out of his pocket and also serves as BM's after-school daycare provider, and she won't commit to picking the kid up a minute before she has to. Totally uninterested in her kids except as a paycheck and occasional social media photo prop.