What is ethical dilemma
Mortality rate meaning
Neck rot of onion
what is an ethicist
Here is the fifth in a series of Divorce Corp polls. Please vote only once. We will post the results after we have received a statistically significant number of votes.
And here is the result of Poll #5, accurate to + / – 3%.
It is rare that we disagree with our voters. Actually, under the current system of laws, we do agree with our voters. But if our preferred reforms were to be enacted, receipts would be unnecessary. We will let one of our readers explain:
“We need to limit paperwork, not create more of it. Especially in light of the fact that people can produce whatever they like in court anyways. The only reason this poll is on the table is the ludicrous levels of support being paid. Cap the amounts and this is a non-issue.” Patrick Glynn
We think that Patrick has pointed out a better solution: cap child support at an amount necessary to raise a child, and no more. In other words, eliminate any potential financial benefit for being a custodial parent.
We strongly believe that child support should be for children, not for custodial parents. Child support should not be conflated with alimony. Our current testosterone propionate cycle child support formulas bring children into the middle of a financial tug of war – and that is wrong. Children should not be financial pawns that the courts dangle in front of parents to tempt them to fight. Children should not be the objects by which states attain Federal matching funds in order to make up for deficiencies in their treasuries (Title IV-D funding). The psychological harm done to children placed in the middle of a custody battle should not be rationalized as “acceptable collateral damage” in order for attorneys and custody evaluators to get rich, so that they, in turn, can transfer some of that wealth, directly or indirectly, to judges.
Including pseudo-alimony into the child support formula was a political plum that was given to the custodial parent lobby years ago. It is unhealthy for the children who are caught up in the middle of custody battles, and fuels unnecessary animosity and resentment from payor parents. Pseudo-aliomony needs to be eliminated from the child support formula.
We think effective legislative reform would involve taking the profit out of being a custodial parent. Examination of receipts then would be unnecessary. Our laws should protect the mental health and well being of our children, not pull them into the middle of an unnecessary fight.