This entire mess is due to the Title IV-D laws (use your fav search engine)
WHERE is the "Equal Parenting Time Enforcement Unit?" Instead, the average "middle class" (usually) caucasian man has to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to preserve his basic parental rights which supposedly are guaranteed to him on the divorce decree. The rights that the mother almost instinctively keeps blocking by denying visitation
But we do have a "Child Support Enforcement Unit" that collects matching Fed funds for every "child" support dollar collected as an incentive never to grant a downward modification to the (male) payor, despite non-voluntary unemployment (laysoffs etc)
We also have the "Child Protective Services" agency that takes daddykins away in cuffs should he try to provide fatherly guidance for Junior/Suzy. This is a helpful tool for mommykins to exhert her universal sovereignty over the child(ren) should daddykins dare provide boundaries for "her little man/her little princess."
ESPECIALLY true if mommykins discerns that daddykins has decided to "move on." REAL child abuse is terribly dangerous and politically incorrect to pursue.
The ULTIMATE in taxation without representation.
(P.S., I'm a 52 year old divorced female who had two--now grown and productive--children. I never received child support, but somehow managed not to alienate the children from dad) So your ideas MAY have been valid back in the early EIGHTIES but they are no longer the case.
The child support formulas (Melson) are derived form a Communist system. I always say that the income earner with the largest salary should get custody. Fathers get soaked and the kids usually don’t even see most of the money.
I like how Australia does it. If a woman gets pregnant on purpose, no child support. If the woman moves out of state, no child support. They have about 18 different scenarios where the woman would not be able to collect.
I don’t give a damn what you, the law of yesterday, today, or tomorrow, judges, lawyers, lesbian or hetero mommies or anybody else says: a man’s DNA is supplied only voluntarily, and when it’s offered to a woman’s uterus via natural means or a turkey baster, it produces that man’s child.
A man’s sperm produces a man’s child. Who else is the father? An archangel? An alien? An abstract legal construct?
And when that child reaches age and searches for his or her father, he’s searching for the man who VOLUNTARILY produced his DNA, one way or the other.
You, the courts, and a million lesbians can pretend otherwise, but the FATHER of that child is, and always shall be, the man who provided the DNA via his sperm.
Now, if he’s an unfit father, a deadbeat, a drug addict or whatnot and should have his rights terminated by the court, that is another legal question.
But he will be the child’s father nonetheless.