http://dadsdivorce.com/news/article.php?artid=14217

A well written article explaining many of the reasons why the family justice system is broken, and an insight on how to fix it....

In the end, doesn't the child get to decide who they would like to live with? This woman i work with paid out the wazoo in lawyer fees to win custody of her daughter. Three months later the daughter moved in with her dad cause she didn't want to live with her mom. Did the mom have to consent to allow the move?

On a side note, could the author have used a worse picture to go with his article? A child with missing teeth and a father with yellow teeth... surely the mother could provide much better hygiene for the baby girl :(

Isn't the decision of who gets custody dependant on who initiated the divorce and what the reasons were? I would assume women get custody 80-90% of the time because 80-90% of the time a divorce is based on the man cheating and or being abusive...

In the end, doesn't the child get to decide who they would like to live with?

Only as the child approaches the teenage years do most judges value thier input on where they live. Before that, it is generally the decision of the court.

I would think a child with missing teeth would have just lost thier baby teeth, but what do I know?

Isn't the decision of who gets custody dependant on who initiated the divorce and what the reasons were?
As for the reasons behind divorce, nowdays you don't have to have a reason. It's called a "No Fault" divorce.
All you have to do is show 1 party doesn't want to be married anymore, and *BAM* you are divorced....

My son it now 16, at the age of 12 and some months he decided he wanted to live with me. His mother knew that she couldn't win a court battle against me as I was stable, had a job and a home. She also knew he , my son, was old enough to testify to the judge he wanted to be here with me.


As for most marriages ending to to infidelity, I don't think the numbers are nearly that high. Also the mother generally gets the child due to custom more than anything else. Outdated custom mind you....

Isn't the decision of who gets custody dependant on who initiated the divorce and what the reasons were? I would assume women get custody 80-90% of the time because 80-90% of the time a divorce is based on the man cheating and or being abusive...

You need to fact check those numbers big time. Marriages end the same reasons relationships end, period. My mom just decided she didn't like who she was with my dad, and years later both remarried to people who also drifted apart from their spouses.

My dad made around $100k and my mom $50k a year. We opted to go split custody (mon/tue with Dad, wed/thur with Mom, weekends split 50/50) and my dad just gave my mom money to help pay for expenses due to the salary difference.

Around half of all marriages end, are you suggesting at least 40 to 45 percent of our male population are wife beaters or cheaters?

The article linked said this "Have you ever wondered why family courts award custody to mothers in 80%-90% of all custody cases" so I just used that same number to suggest that the reason for that number historically is because men cause the divorce. All the divorces I know of are either from the man cheating or being abusive.

Isn't the decision of who gets custody dependant on who initiated the divorce and what the reasons were? I would assume women get custody 80-90% of the time because 80-90% of the time a divorce is based on the man cheating and or being abusive...

That is one helluva biased statement. Any data to back it up?

Its not easy to find good data, but here is a small piece I found.

http://www.love-sessions.com/divorce_statistics.htm


"This latest divorce rate provided by the US Census Bureau is 3.6 per 1,000 total population. When compared to 1997, the divorce trends in 2007 have undergone a radical change, More categories of "reasons" are emerging as the root cause of divorce in US these days. According to the 2004 data, one of the new reasons are family strains, which account for 18 per cent of the divorce. Emotional and physical abuse account for 17 per cent of the divorces. Similarly, mid-life crisis accounts for 13 per cent of the divorces. Addictions to alcoholism and gambling accounts for 6 per cent of the divorce. Addiction to work accounts for 6 per cent of the divorce. Extramarital affairs continues to top the list. It accounts for 27 per cent of marriages ending in divorce.
While 75 per cent of men are found to be involved in extramarital affairs, 25 per cent of women have relationship with men outside the purview of marriage. The 2004 survey also established that women seeking divorce was to the extent of 93 per cent in divorce cases and only a small segment of men questioned them."

The bold indicates that recently more categories of "reasons" have come about. If you looked at historical data as far back as possible I bet it would show that the great majority of divorces were initiated by women because the man was cheating or abusive.

My first sentence was a question. My second sentence was an assumption I made that led me to ask the question. Grats on successfully debunking a question.

Well I divorced my husband b/c he was a dumbass and thought money grew on trees. Young when we married, though one of us grew up faster than the other. I shudder when people marry under the age of 21 anymore, no I cringe.

Isn't the decision of who gets custody dependant on who initiated the divorce and what the reasons were? I would assume women get custody 80-90% of the time because 80-90% of the time a divorce is based on the man cheating and or being abusive...

allegedly .......

If a man is cheating on his wife, why does that make him an unfit father? It make him a lousy husband, to be sure, but should it preclude the ability to be a father to his children?

If it does, then why do women that cheat on their husbands still retain the ability to be a mother to the children?

Well Six I would argue that by being unable to honor the mother (or relationship ) he'd be unable to pass that on to his kids.

In the marriages I seen fail due to infidelity by the man it was more a case of the man having no respect for women. That alone makes it questionable if he'd still be a good father.

The woman wasn't giving it up!!!!!!!!! Its why all males wonder.

Anyways, divorce sucks for anyone. The relationship is a two way street. I have seen instances where the woman cheats, they get a divorce, mans pay check and children go bye bye. Wisconsin is zero fault, she cheats, you don't like it and get divorced it doesn't matter in the courts.

Well Six I would argue that by being unable to honor the mother (or relationship ) he'd be unable to pass that on to his kids.

In the marriages I seen fail due to infidelity by the man it was more a case of the man having no respect for women. That alone makes it questionable if he'd still be a good father.

And in the instances where the mother cheats, wouldn't it come into question whether she could be a good mother? Pass on the ability to show respect for men?
Instead, you see the majority of "no fault" divorces where the mother retains custody of the children.
If there is no fault as to why the divorce took place, then the custody should be split equally between the parents, and no alimony or child support awarded.

Just my 2 cents worth....

If there is no fault as to why the divorce took place, then the custody should be split equally between the parents, and no alimony or child support awarded.


Sounds like someone who just doesn't want to pay for his kids...

Sounds like someone who just doesn't want to pay for his kids...

Sounds like someone is buying into the stereotypes....

Tell me how a father that has custody of his children, 50% of the time wouldn't pay for food, clothing, and shelter of said child? If he didn't, wouldn't he have his custody taken away?

Are women, somehow the only gender qualified to buy food and clothing for children, and provide shelter?

Boobs don't qualify you as a good parent. Kids need both genders in thier lives, espically if there is any chance of the child to grow up and be a productive member of society.....

Sounds like someone is buying into the stereotypes....

Tell me how a father that has custody of his children, 50% of the time wouldn't pay for food, clothing, and shelter of said child? If he didn't, wouldn't he have his custody taken away?

Are women, somehow the only gender qualified to buy food and clothing for children, and provide shelter?

Boobs don't qualify you as a good parent. Kids need both genders in thier lives, espically if there is any chance of the child to grow up and be a productive member of society.....

Agree 100%

I've known several fathers here in Georgia that got royally screwed by the system, Sixee. One of them, unemployed, got thrown in jail because he was temporarily unable to afford the alimony payments. His ex-wife? An accountant, making six figures.

Our system is a mess.

My girlfriend is a staff attorney for one of the superior court districts here and deals almost exclusively with these domestic issues. The stories I hear are just unbelievable sometimes.

I think a big part of the problem is that people use the system offensively against each other, as a weapon in petty arguments.

Sixee,

The alimony/child support thing is a lot more complex than a few sentences and "it was nobody's fault" though. Say early in a marriage one person worked so the other could get education. They had a few kids, then the educated one now has a great job and the other is slightly above where they started - gender irrelevant. The one will not be able to provide as well as the other and will need financial support.

Remember, the parental roles are evolving rapidly. While 50 years ago there was always the "stay at home mom" who didn't have to work, today both spouses work (though generally women still make less than men) or the roles could be reversed. Its too rapidly changing to make absolute laws and rules and thats why we have the judges who are looking out for the best interests for the kids.

nstead, you see the majority of "no fault" divorces where the mother retains custody of the children.
If there is no fault as to why the divorce took place, then the custody should be split equally between the parents, and no alimony or child support awarded.

I've never heard of the majority of "no fault" divorces being awarded full custody to the mother. I think thats something you may assume to be true, but I'm fairly sure it isn't.

Sixee,

The alimony/child support thing is a lot more complex than a few sentences and "it was nobody's fault" though. Say early in a marriage one person worked so the other could get education. They had a few kids, then the educated one now has a great job and the other is slightly above where they started - gender irrelevant. The one will not be able to provide as well as the other and will need financial support.

And that's exactly my point. Trying to say just because parents share custody that one parent won't need some assistance to help rear the child is just short sighted.

If both parents make the same money, and share custody 50%, than I'd agree with you. That's a lot of assumptions to make though when it comes to the welfare of a child.

Kid's need both parents. I won't dispute that. Your comment though just came off as a pissed off father that feels he's being taken advantage of (which from hearing your situation, is probably the case). That doesn't make every situation exactly like yours though. The best interest of the child should come first. Period.

San, I think you are right. It seems a lot of people take a system that should be utilized to keep things even, and bash the person that can't defend themselves against it.

Kel, I know mine went that direction.
And if you go to the discussion boards on the Dadsdivorce.com site, you'll see a lot more guys that have had that happen to them.

A divorce should happen in the event of infidelity, abuse, addiction and mental health issues, and it should be a faulted divorce. A faulted divorce would allow for Child support and alimony.

"No fault" divorces should be allowed, but shouldn't have the benefits of a faulted one. If it's no one's fault the divorce happened, Split the custody 50/50, no alimony or child support, and send people on their way.

"No fault" divorces should be allowed, but shouldn't have the benefits of a faulted one. If it's no one's fault the divorce happened, Split the custody 50/50, no alimony or child support, and send people on their way.

Again, that attitude is short sighted and doesn't look out for the welfare of the child, which should be the most important thing to take care of in the event of a divorce. Even if custody is shared 50/50, that doesn't mean that both parents can fiscally take care of the child.

I agree no alimony; I think alimony in general is bullshit.

Of course people on a website for Dad's and their divorces will complain its stacked against them. The divorces that went well ... they have no reason to post on a support group.

Like my post, my parents just were growing apart. My dad made more than my mom and paid for her to help cover expenses while at her house (food, clothes, etc.) and they split health care costs and tuition 60/40.
While most if not all of my highshool friends had their parents split up, an interesting one was where my friend's dad was a Pastor (~$40k a year) and her mom was a Doctor ($150k a year). There was no way he could provide 50% of the children's expenses on his salary, they had 4 children. Your only options you leave Sixee is he changes professions from one he loves and helps people to perhaps another in order to make more money - or stay with his wife and be in an unhappy marriage (and a very negative environment for the children to grow up in)

Even Alimony has its reasons. The stay at home spouse who raised the children and provided daycare for X number of years is now X number of years behind on the career track. They may need financial support to get education or find a new job to support themself, or the person who decided they don't want to stay married to their spouse who is now ill or dying of some disease. The ill spouse can't work and thus should just die outside on the street? These payments aren't a right of the divorcees, but its something they may ask for and if deemed justified are then court ordered.

Let's put it this way....
If, as a businessman, the law stated that anyone I contract with can bail at anytime with "no fault" on my behalf but can still receive all the benefits of the contract from me, this is fraud. If you believe this is fair, then I have a million dollar contract I would like for you to sign with me so I can bail and still collect.

If I were fully informed of that fact of a unilateral cancelation with full compensation clause in your favor only I would not do business. Would you? Or would you expect that criminal fraud who attempts such behavior to go to jail for committing her fraud?Why do we reward marital fraud?

I don't think you can compare your joint responsibility for a child's welfare to a business contract. That's kinda cold.

State involvement in marriages IS effectively a business contract granting a large number of implicit rights and obligations to both parties. The religious aspect is almost entirely separate.

As an ordained minister, I can, in the eyes of God, marry any people I want (and almost had to preside over my friend's wedding in 2005), but without state dispensation for the legal elements that doesn't really mean anything until you get to God's court.

It's a sad state of affairs, and until we somehow get the Government incentives out of the business of breaking up marriages, children will be the ones who continue to suffer.

Incidentally, why does the welfare of a child always seem to boil down to money? What about all those wonderful life lessons that fathers impart to their children? Can you put a price on that?

Yeah, the price is apparently about 40% of his income ;-p

Let's put it this way....
If, as a businessman, the law stated that anyone I contract with can bail at anytime with "no fault" on my behalf but can still receive all the benefits of the contract from me, this is fraud. If you believe this is fair, then I have a million dollar contract I would like for you to sign with me so I can bail and still collect.

If I were fully informed of that fact of a unilateral cancelation with full compensation clause in your favor only I would not do business. Would you? Or would you expect that criminal fraud who attempts such behavior to go to jail for committing her fraud?Why do we reward marital fraud?

Good grief, thats a horrible analogy. That "contract" in these cases isn't a piece of business - its a child that can't provide for or protect itself. The parents who created the child are responsible, and the law protects the child. Its not a million dollar contract you can pull out of after its conceived and leave it to rot on its own.

Marriage is the contract, not the child....

Regardless, do you think it is fair for fathers to only get every other weekend, and 1 weekday overnight, to visit his child(ren) while having to pay out 40% of his income, when his position before the divorce was to see his children whenever he wanted, and to have control on what his income was spent on to raise his child(ren)?

That's probably one of the biggest reasons I will never get married again: I refuse to get pushed out of my child's life on the whim of a woman....

Marriage is the contract, not the child....

Regardless, do you think it is fair for fathers to only get every other weekend, and 1 weekday overnight, to visit his child(ren) while having to pay out 40% of his income, when his position before the divorce was to see his children whenever he wanted, and to have control on what his income was spent on to raise his child(ren)?

That's probably one of the biggest reasons I will never get married again: I refuse to get pushed out of my child's life on the whim of a woman....

However, this isn't the norm. Its far from it. Generally in "no fault" divorces custody is split 50/50 and the spouse who makes more than the other compensates through child support. And I picture that you're too biased to accept the facts of what is the norm even if they were presented to you.

You may have gotten screwed by the system, you may have gotten just what you deserved - we have no way of knowing as no one here was married to you. But the fact is child support is vital in many children's lives, most likely including yours.

I have some very personal experience with this system. My parents got divorced when i was 6. It was a VERY VERY ugly sitaution. My father ended up getting custody which is RARE, but only because he had a job and a place to stay (aka his parents house). My mom didnt work because she stayed home to take care of my 2 sisters who were not in school yet.

The child gets NO say in the matter, the few instances are only children typically in their later teens in a situation where both the Father and Mother can provide equal housing, medical, and educaitonal care.

The system is completely broken, and the system lets parents use kids as punishment for the other parent. If my mother missed a child support payment by even a day, he wouldnt let her pick us up for her weekend because he knew she couldnt afford the Family Practice Lawyer it would take to ensure visitation.

I despise with my whole heart the Department of Children and Families (as its called in Florida) and the Custody system.

Let's put it this way....
If, as a businessman, the law stated that anyone I contract with can bail at anytime with "no fault" on my behalf but can still receive all the benefits of the contract from me, this is fraud. If you believe this is fair, then I have a million dollar contract I would like for you to sign with me so I can bail and still collect.

If I were fully informed of that fact of a unilateral cancelation with full compensation clause in your favor only I would not do business. Would you? Or would you expect that criminal fraud who attempts such behavior to go to jail for committing her fraud?Why do we reward marital fraud?

Having a child is not a business...that is the BIG difference. Not even comparible IMHO.

But if you want to think of it that way...this is how one must think of it. This is a VERY unique business that can't be dissolved or sold off, or really negotiated due to a partners lack of ability to maintain said asset. This business has to be maintained for life and regardless to as to how much one makes monatary wise it will be maintained in the very best envirnment with BOTH partners money pooled together as though the business was still completely in place.

Now if one of the business partners does not make enough money to maintain the asset of the business at the optimium level the other partner will pick up the slack to help maintain that asset in the best environment. Business partners have to realize that if they joined in partnership in this (children) business that they should have chosen someone on equal footing monatary wise if they did not want to risk the possiblity of contributing more to the maintance than the other. This business is quite risky as you can see.


If my father had not paid my mother child support the court ordered (which was enough for us to maintain a good environment) when I was a child we would have lived in ghetto when we spent time with her and lived in the nice neighborhood only with him. That would not have been fair to us kids to been subjected to the ghetto just because my parents got a divorce.

Now if a father wanted to make us kids not want to go there and visit my mother because of the place she would have had to live due to her ability to earn money then I would say he was using the system to try to obtain the children.

Children are a LIFE time commitment. Their 1. quality of life nor their 2. need for both a mother and father in their life does not stop just due to money and 1. and 2. are BOTH important. Unfortunately when one has a child even if a relationship stops this is one assest that can't be sold or split, and has to be maintained for life.

I am grateful to my father that he helped maintain a place for me when I was with my mother. He would have never done it had the courts told him to...but I am still glad he never tried to run from the court order, fight it or tried to make my mother's life miserable in order for his pocket book not to take a dent. I did not see this as a child but I do see this as a adult.

This is one event that can come full circle on mothers and fathers.... what comes around, goes around. This I believe can make regrets in ones older age and this regret would suck.

Out of all the decisions we make in our life...career, school...nothing will ever come close to the decision of who we choose as our life partner.

IMHO, who one chooses for a life partner is the MOST important decision one can ever make in their life ESPECIALLY if they have children with them. One can never truly dissolve the partnership completely after children. It is a life time business.

That's probably one of the biggest reasons I will never get married again: I refuse to get pushed out of my child's life on the whim of a woman....

You do not have to be married for this to happen to you. Having children unmarried with a woman, it is a intiate risk for it to happen. A woman could say that with a man too for that matter....lol If you want to avoid it and still have children the best way to do it is to pay a surragote to have a child with a donor egg and your sperm. Knew of a man that did that 10 times!! He was a business man and a good one at that. He knew of the business risks of having child with a woman and was not willing to take those risks...lol Although he was a bit unorthadox and eccentrict too...lol

What about all those wonderful life lessons that fathers impart to their children? Can you put a price on that?

Impart on your child about how to be a good business partner and to choose a good business partner and to know that children are risky business ventures....hehehehe :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24594416/

"Statistics reported there were almost 6.4 million pregnancies in 2004, down 6 percent from 1990. Forty-five percent were to women who were not married"

Slight change in topic, sorry. I mentioned this to my coworker and he replied, "That goes to show there is something screwed up with marriage."
Sigh, I don't even know why I bother to care anymore.

/nods Phel when I hear folks talk like that I have no response. I haven't been married for quite some time now, however even I recognize the value of a true marriage.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24594416/

"Statistics reported there were almost 6.4 million pregnancies in 2004, down 6 percent from 1990. Forty-five percent were to women who were not married"

Slight change in topic, sorry. I mentioned this to my coworker and he replied, "That goes to show there is something screwed up with marriage."
Sigh, I don't even know why I bother to care anymore.

Pregnancies down for starters is a great thing. Maybe it means more people are being careful and practicing safe sex.

Pregnancies outside of marriage however may be to gay couples who can't get married, women who were hired to have a child for families who can't due to age or medical complications, adult women who want to raise a child on their own, or simply relationships opting not to marry. Those stats aren't exceptionally scary ... aside from those which are teen/unwanted pregnancies due to carelessness and stupidity.

I'd agree there probably is something wrong with marriage, but not the institution. Mostly I fault the pressures to get married young before you even know yourself. My parents marriage ended because they were a horrible match, but they were a great couple in highschool. Who is still the same person they were in highschool? People need time to grow up, get to know themselves, date and love and fuck a ton of people ... and then when you meet that person who really knocks you off your feet go for it. With life expectancy of Generation Y nearing 90 years old there is so much time for fun, a career, and then marriage ... and then even much later, kids if you so desire.

Pregnancies down for starters is a great thing. Maybe it means more people are being careful and practicing safe sex.

Pregnancies outside of marriage however may be to gay couples who can't get married, women who were hired to have a child for families who can't due to age or medical complications, adult women who want to raise a child on their own, or simply relationships opting not to marry. Those stats aren't exceptionally scary ... aside from those which are teen/unwanted pregnancies due to carelessness and stupidity.

I'd agree there probably is something wrong with marriage, but not the institution. Mostly I fault the pressures to get married young before you even know yourself. My parents marriage ended because they were a horrible match, but they were a great couple in highschool. Who is still the same person they were in highschool? People need time to grow up, get to know themselves, date and love and fuck a ton of people ... and then when you meet that person who really knocks you off your feet go for it. With life expectancy of Generation Y nearing 90 years old there is so much time for fun, a career, and then marriage ... and then even much later, kids if you so desire.


Well said Kelraz

With life expectancy of Generation Y nearing 90 years old there is so much time for fun, a career, and then marriage ... and then even much later, kids if you so desire.
If you don't care about the risk factors for the mother or child of having a kid 'much later.'

If a person wants children, there IS a limited time table to mitigate the risks of pregnancy. That doesn't mean a person has to get married and have children in her mid 20s. It doesn't mean a person can't get started on a career and then find love and then have children. It DOES mean that there is a time table to mitigate risks though (and that's about 35 years old).

If a couple is willing to risk the health (meaning the risks for retardation or defects) of the child, so that they can further their fun in life, than the couple shouldn't be having the child in the first place. Putting off children past 35 isn't just about the potential harm to the mother, if that's all it was, than there would be no issues with putting off children as long as possible. Once you get into increased risk for the child (and we aren't talking minor additional risk here) that has no choice or say in the issue, than the parent is just a self absorbed ass. If the parents aren't looking at the needs of the child early on, what are the chances that person will look out for the needs of the child after birth (especially if there is some defect)?

The health of the child is something that no parent should be willing to gamble.

Just a point of clarification here:

The increase in risk (of genetic and other abnormalities) with increasing maternal age is slight between 35-40; it is only after age 40 that the risk of specific nondisjunction related disorders (Down's syndrome, etc) increases rapidly. It is also noteworthy that *paternal* age is also being implicated in a number of genetic disorders, specifically autism and Fragile X syndrome.

Postponing childbirth past 40 carries significant risks, but keep in mind that people, especially women, are *well* aware of the tradeoffs involved in childbearing (which in this day and age still usually involve a fairly massive hit to earning potential) and to imply that people postpone childbearing simply because they are 'having their fun' is a gross oversimplification that ignores very real pressures that are having an effect throughout the western world.

On the child support issue, one should be mindful that that such support is for the *children*, and no matter how contentious the divorce, or how estranged the partners may be from each other, those children deserve a chance at a safe and comfortable upbringing. No-one gets married, or begets children, anticipating a divorce, but I agree with Kelraz that people exercising more caution when deciding whether to spawn is a *good* thing. When one decides to reproduce (keeping in mind that both 'accidents' and pregnancy terminations do happen), one *is* making a committment to the welfare of that new human being, and (once that human being has been brought into the world) that should supercede other considerations, regardless of what a scheming cunt your ex-wife may have been ;).

Regards,
Nydia

No-one gets married, or begets children, anticipating a divorce, but I agree with Kelraz that people exercising more caution when deciding whether to spawn is a *good* thing.

I'm not saying that it's not a good thing. All I am saying is that waiting too long (if the person does indeed want children) carries increased risk. While that may be a decision the parents make for themselves, it is one that the child has no say.

We would be much better off if everyone waited until they were ready for children, no more children to high school mothers, etc. That the pregnancy rate is decreasing might reflect this, I'd rather see the pregnancy rates of that demographic and not pregnancy as a whole.

And I got the age range incorrect, thank you for the correction Nydia. I also wasn't aware of an aging man potentially leading to Autism.

When one decides to reproduce (keeping in mind that both 'accidents' and pregnancy terminations do happen), one *is* making a committment to the welfare of that new human being, and (once that human being has been brought into the world) that should supercede other considerations, regardless of what a scheming cunt your ex-wife may have been ;).



That statement can go both ways, regarding ex-husbands, as well.

My verbage may not convey the message in the most politically correct method, but why does welfare = money?
Sure, clothing, shelter and food all cost money, but how is it in the "best interest of the child(ren)" to take a parent who has been in the child(ren)'s daily life, and only allow access to them every other weekend, and 1 overnight a week?

Keep in mind that the noncustodial parent (NCP) is required to also provide food, shelter, and clothing, while having their take home pay imputed by 40%.
This would mean in order to keep the standard of living the same as before the divorce, they have to work 40% harder. Even if the custody IS shared, how does the NCP find the 40% more time? Add hours to the day? Last time I checked, there are still only 24 hours in a day.

Some states are going to the shared income model, where the income of BOTH parents figure into the "child support". This seems a fairer model, but I would suggest one step further: to put this income imputed from both parents into a fund that is spent only on food, clothing, and shelter for the child by way of vouchers, or the way state welfare is distributed now days, via a "credit" card. This card can only be used for clothing up to a certain size, rent payments, and food, nothing else.

I'm not a big fan on the nanny state, but if adults can't learn to get along, then someone has to look after the real child(ren)'s welfare.

I also think the shared income model is the fairest way to determine child support payments.