Started By
Message

Is the child support system outdated and in need of an overhaul?

Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:12 am
Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
21042 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:12 am
The child support system has become a means for single mons to increase their income. Most spend that money on themselves and are still on the welfare system.

In the 1950s & 1960s when divorce became a common occurrence, those women had never worked and applied for government assistance. Child support laws were created in the 70's to ease the government's welfare expenses.

50 years later, the working world is more equalized and women can support a family on their own. .

Article from 2015, 10 years ago: talking about the failing CS system
https://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456632896/how-u-s-parents-racked-up-113-billion-in-child-support-debt

How America's Child Support System Failed To Keep Up With The Times
quote:

When the U.S. child support collection system was set up in 1975 under President Gerald Ford — a child of divorce whose father failed to pay court-ordered child support — the country, and the typical family, looked very different from today.

And as the nation's social, economic and demographic landscape has shifted, the system has struggled to keep up. Cynthia Osborne, director of the Child and Family Research Partnership and associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin's LBJ School of Public Affairs, explains how these changes have outpaced the decades-old system — and left the country with more than $113 billion in unpaid child support.


quote:

The whole system was set up in a way to try to bring back what the nuclear family looked like prior to a divorce, and nearly everyone who entered into the child support system was a product of divorce. There were very few nonmarital births at that time.

During that time period, divorce was one of the single greatest predictors that a woman, especially a woman with children, would fall into poverty. The research indicated that fathers typically gained financially following a divorce, even though they were ordered to pay child support, and mothers typically lost financially, they had both the children and reduced income. And so the child support system was hoping to try to offset some of that.


quote:

It really can't be overstated how important in the whole welfare reform debate [it] was that one of the fastest entrants into the labor market were women with children under the ages of 5. And it became harder and harder to justify that we should have a system that would support one group of women to stay at home with their children while this other group of women was choosing to enter into the labor market.


quote:

And with child support, by the mid-1990s when all of these reforms were being put into place, nonmarital childbearing had risen from being something that was not very pervasive to nearly one-third of all births, 25 to 28 percent. Now, it's at 41 to 42 percent.


The child support system we have seems kind of outdated to me.. Both parents are responsible for the child equally. Why should one pay extra? I get gas, food, etc., but you’re a parent too. You shouldn’t stop being financially responsible for your kid. I just think there’s a simpler, fairer way to do things.
This post was edited on 6/14/26 at 9:15 am
Posted by mailman85
Kentucky
Member since Mar 2013
319 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:15 am to
Yes, women have it too easy.
Posted by ezride25
Constitutional Republic
Member since Nov 2008
26633 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:19 am to
Ideas surrounding the nuclear family are in need of an overhaul.

You’re looking at the symptom, not the problem.
Posted by High C
viewing the fall....
Member since Nov 2012
61339 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:19 am to
Both child support and divorce laws are archaic and completely unfair to the man in the vast majority of cases.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
478414 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:20 am to
It needs an overhaul in LA

The basics are that there is an obligation amount based around the number of children and total monthly salary. Then you basically multiply that by the % of the total salaries for the paying parent

That obligation should be more malleable based on who is working. In theory it's effectively assuming the receiving parent isn't working, and when both are working it should be lower.

Then it gets really wonky with things like daycare. The system was built before co-parenting was more of a thing and prior to daycare being a necessity. With how expensive it is, it warps the total CS award. We need to put that into the calculation for the total obligation amount and not just award it 100%.
Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
21042 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:26 am to
quote:

In theory it's effectively assuming the receiving parent isn't working, and when both are working it should be lower.


My ex tried the "I'm just going to sit on my laurels and show zero income"

The judge used potential income and based the CS on her previous salary.
Posted by Gee Grenouille
Member since Jul 2018
8227 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 9:58 am to
Idk about all that shite, but something needs to change with govt funded pregnancies.

The child’s dna should go into a database and cross checked annually with other dna databases to try to locate the father. Fellas will quit spraying guts if that happens.
Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
21042 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:03 am to
quote:

Fellas will quit spraying guts if that happens.


I highly doubt that.

quote:

dna should go into a database and cross checked annually with other dna databases to try to locate the father


The result would be baby daddy is in prison with no way to pay.
Posted by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
78835 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:04 am to
You knew the risk when you signed the contract. You bet half your shite you would love the same pussy forever.

Suck, but house called. Make more money so it doesn't hurt as bad.
Posted by LemmyLives
Texas
Member since Mar 2019
16635 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:05 am to
quote:

Then you basically multiply that by the % of the total salaries for the paying parent

At least TX caps it, regardless of income, at about $2500 for two kids. You get to subtract health insurance that you pay for, too.
Posted by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
78835 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:05 am to
quote:

divorce laws are archaic and completely unfair to the man in the vast majority of cases


Divorce laws don't have gender involved.


Judges maybe....

Settle out of court. You can give her enough money to disappear.
This post was edited on 6/14/26 at 10:06 am
Posted by Dawgfanman
Member since Jun 2015
26379 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:08 am to
Child support should be actual cost to raise a child, not some percentage of income. This could be based on “average child” in a specific zip code. It should also be 50/50 not based on income or who has the child.

If you were married and stayed home while hubby provided an above average lifestyle and decide to leave, tough shite that you now need to work and pay half the cost for the child’s basic needs.
Posted by fareplay
Member since Nov 2012
6617 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:09 am to
2500 ain’t shite for 2 kids. Whoever gets custody will be financially in weaker position
Posted by Dawgfanman
Member since Jun 2015
26379 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:11 am to
quote:

2500 ain’t shite for 2 kids. Whoever gets custody will be financially in weaker position


5000 a month to raise two kids? Or does custodial parent not have any financial responsibility?

I pay housing, food, car and health insurance, clothing, etc for two college students and it isn’t 5000 a month.
Posted by jmarto1
Houma, LA/ Las Vegas, NV
Member since Mar 2008
38855 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:12 am to
Yes, it is a safety net for them now
Posted by fareplay
Member since Nov 2012
6617 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:12 am to
2 kids daycare food activities toys and TIME? Yes 5k ain’t enough
Posted by Dawgfanman
Member since Jun 2015
26379 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:13 am to
quote:

2 kids daycare food activities toys and TIME? Yes 5k ain’t enough


I’d guess 80-90% of families do not spend 5000 a month raising two kids, no matter the age. This is after tax money.
Posted by fareplay
Member since Nov 2012
6617 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:15 am to
It’s not just about spending money for kids, you lose so much of your freedom from kids which is hard to quantify. Baby sitter? Due diligence. Parent meetings? Busy. Vacations? Pay for 3… etc etc.

Overnight trip to Vegas? Forget it.
This post was edited on 6/14/26 at 10:16 am
Posted by idlewatcher
Planet Arium
Member since Jan 2012
97566 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:15 am to
I would argue the formula to arrive at a $ amount is outdated. We have a lot of deadbeat parents in this country.
Posted by Dawgfanman
Member since Jun 2015
26379 posts
Posted on 6/14/26 at 10:16 am to
quote:

It’s not just about spending money for kids, you lose so much of your freedom from kids which is hard to quantify. Baby sitter? Due diligence. Parent meetings? Busy. Vacations? Pay for 3… etc etc


I’m well aware of what parenting costs outside of money. But child support is money. Custody is time and a separate discussion.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram