[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible idea, katy, and kind of makes a mockery of existing concepts of alimony and child support. What about the idea of someone being enabled by hubby/dad's money to live "in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed?" I think that's an idea that's okay for kids, completely out of line for moms, but that you can't really separate the lifestyles of kids and moms without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so you have to keep the mom sitting pretty too. But they are going to get the child support needed to live a normal life according to their present notions of one, not a free ticket to gamble with and redeem when necessary.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure which part of my post you were referring to. I definitely see your point that the father's income should not be seen as some type of lottery ticket for the ex-wife to play with. I agree.

I guess I was just thinking that there are probably many men and women who start off in life with really low salaries barely helping their exes out with child support, but later move up the ladder and are now making better salaries. Should their child support still remain ridiculously low? I really don't know. I admit I haven't given this a lot of thought.

But yeah I can see your point that fathers would get nowhere in life if they had to keep paying the ex a bigger and bigger chunk of their salary each year. I think the K-fed thing is a special case. I doubt the guy had much money to begin with. Now he lives like a millionaire and yet his child support to Char (or whatever her name is) might still be something like $300/month. That just seems weird to me.


I sort of think the whole child support thing is problematic. That's why I think it's better if both parents share 50/50 in the care and custody.