The flip side.....should PAYERS of child support be required to pay an....?

depends on how many other people are in the household.......but that is also a good idea.......i know of some people who pay only like 62.00 a month..........pleaseeeeee........oh_hell

I can see that being an issue. For example, who decides how much and what? If one parent decides on his/her own to enroll the child into a sport, all the accruing costs included, and the other disagrees, shall they expect the other to pay for 1/2? I can see that being argued a lot.

I don't have children, so I may look at this wrong, but everyone complains that the government is too involved - so what is being said is you want more government involvement to review the charges/courts to determine, etc where it goes? It can't be trusted between the exes. Sure a lot are on a friendly basis, but you're always going to have the couples who fight over every penny, wanting more, or wanting to pay less. Not everyone - many are due what they get, plus more. I like the idea of itemizing, but I would question the ability to enforce it on either end.

I think you miss the point of the complaints about child support. I pay my ex child support. But, the children spend half the time with me anyways. So, I am paying for part of their expenses at my ex's house, and all of their expenses when they are with me. Where is the logic in that?

I understand the amount I am paying, as it is based on the fact I have two kids, and make a certain amount of money. It is a simple formula. What I complain about is that why am I paying for "1/2" there expenses at the ex's house, even when 1/2 the time they are staying under my roof and eating my food.

So, get of you soapbox before you start trying to preach to those of us who see there is a problem with the system.

On top of that, I pay for the insurance for the children. I spend $2000 a year on this. Then, we split everything after insurance. So, if throughout the year, the kids med bills come to $600, I pay the original $2000 plus $300 as apposed to only the $300 the ex pays. Sure, this is really fair.

So, in a year, I will pay her:

$9000 in CS

$2000 in Ins. Premiums

Not to mention my rent, elec, gas, water, telephone, food, gas, etc. for the 1/2 the time they spend at my home. And, I take my children on outings and do things with them. Am I supposed to fork over money for their mother to do things with them as well?

And, I don't get to claim either on my taxes(Texas Law), can't claim child care costs, or any of those sort of deductions. I also do not qualify for the child tax credit.

So, where in all this am I wrong in thinking the system is off, and the one who receives the CS is defnitely getting the better end of the deal.

And, don't get me started on the fact they the mother is made the custodial parent in 6 out of 10 nationally, and 8 out 10 in in Texas, even when it is known the father is truly the better parent.

I think it makes sense. A child was born to 2 parents, and both parents should have to pay equally for the child's upbringing. That argument that the parent should only have to pay the equivalent of the amount of time they spend with the child is classic deadbeat parent attitude. The kid doesn't make the legal decisions of the court, folks. And in any event, he/she is still your child and you should feel a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to provide. Hell, it should be instinctual. Parents should stop griping over such trivial matters and just step up to the plate and be role models for their children, case closed.

If the child spends 50% of the time with both parents.

It should work both ways. As I said, I had a decent job, so never tried to pursue it. But I know of women separated from men who are "comfortable" & don't do enough for their children.

your comment on my question.....i got him out of a foster home, and have only had him for a little over a year....thankyou