As far as I am concerned, child support as currently implemented in the US is true slavery.
I do not say this out of anger at being forced to support my biological children. My child support was tolerable and was paid to the last cent 20 years ago. I say that because of the specific child support laws passed, and their current implementation.
The original basis for men -- for it is mostly men who pay support; women have a much higher delinquency rate than men -- to be ordered to pay child support was an attempt to provide children with the same support they would receive if their parents were in a traditional marriage. I could argue that women who want the benefits for themselves or their children they had in marriage should stay married, but what do I know?
So, what does a child who lives in a traditional marriage receive from his father, by the law?
Food; clothing; housing; medical care; toys and luxuries as his parents decide, or not, as long as he is a minor child.
WHEN the father has the money. And, only to the degree he has the money If he has a lot, there may be a lot of goodies; if not, there may be used toys from Goodwill.
If the father becomes unemployed or disabled, the family cuts back wherever possible. Dad does not incur a debt for bicycles which were not purchased when he was unemployed. Dad does not incur debt for clothes which were not purchased while he was unemployed. Dad does not incur debt based on summer camps not attended while he was unemployed. Nor does he lose his driver's license or professional licenses nor does he go jail for his inability to pay.
And, he does not incur owed accrued interest on those things which were not bought. If he loses his job, the family cuts back; economizes; and does without until he gets back to work, or Mommy files for divorce in the modern AW style.
Also, once that kid becomes a legal adult, dad is not obliged to give him money nor provide an advanced education. Dad may have a valid reason he does not wish to pay for college, or he may simply not wish to do so. I chose not to help my Real Daughter go to college, though I love her more than life itself, because I felt she was a bit lazy, and thought the experience of working her way through would be good for her. I was right; it made an excellent adult out of her. And, no one could sue me and make my give her money to go to college.
It does not matter if all his neighbors choose to pay for their kids education. Majority practice does not become mandatory for all.
Also married men are never legally required to withhold support from one child so another child may live a good life based on some past time of life when things were going well. In fact, if he did, he could and would probably be charged with abuse or neglect.
Also, if a married man discovers a neighbor kid in his house, eating his food, he can send the little bugger home, instead of spending lots of money for his food.
The women of this nation -- and when one says she is not responsible, my tendency is to call her a liar, since virtually every women I have discussed this with agrees with every part of existing enforcment -- wanted the laws the way they are, in every detail. Contrary to well-meaning participants in this URL, no one has ever gained one insignicant change in current law by writing letters to legislators or judges, or by debating these issues. I don't mind if you try what was already tried, as akin to mental illness as that might be; it's your life.
Just as men who try to debate false rape charges is summarily called a rape denier, so any man who tries to point out serious flaws in child support laws is told, "But, the kiddies need the money" as if that justified any unconstitutional act or violation of personal rights one can think of.
The first thing one learns when studying current child support practice is that it isn't child support. Recipients aren't even legally obliged to use the money on the payor's kids. They can pop it into CD's or REIT and there is no recourse. Also, the money a man pays for his kids can be used for any kid by any man. Ditto on recourse. Child support is alimony conditional on the existence of children, and they do not even need to be the man's own kids.
Also, actually providing all the needs of a child is not counted as child support. I worked some years ago with a woman who married a divorced father. Shortly after the divorce, mommy gave him the kids. This new wife helped him completely raise the kids for the next 15 years. One day he gets notice, and is then told he has to pay mommy 15 years of back child support. The dearies specifically wrote that any actual support given shall not be counted as child support payment.
Whereas married men must only share the amount they actually earn, child support can be set anywhere a stupid judge or government official wants. Many a man has told the judge the amount ordered was greater than his actual income, and the judge shrugs and says, well rob banks, how you get it is not my problem.
Child support agencies also set imaginary amounts. This is called imputed income.
When a man is unemployed or disabled, in many places he must wait for six months before they adjust the amount owed. During that time he falls behind, then they take away his driver's license; professional licenses; and passport.
In the mid-80's when this mess was being developed, in my state a man who had falled behind on his support payments was given those kids by Mommy. CSRU said having those kids did not reduce the amount to be taken out of his weekly check to pay back his shortage. Since this mean he could not support those kids, he turned them over to the state, then killed himself.
