"TeacherMama" wrote
Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve
a child, therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not
abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the
other parent 50% of the time

I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage
where one parent stayed at home with the children for
15 years, while the other developed job skills and rose
through the ranks at work. Each did the job they had
agreed to do during the marriage--but now one is left
with no job skills and the other is sitting pretty, salary
wise. Sure, the working parent will have to learn the
housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that
while still having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former
stay-at-hme parent will have a nicely organized house,
with very little to pay the bills. How could it be ok for the
working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at home
parent in poverty?

I came into this thread late, so I missed alot.

I'm not that far off from Father Drew in concept, but I also agree with
TeacherMama that some consideration needs to be made for extremes in cases
of inequitable income. Some reasons for the inequity can be many and
varied, but they are there regardless. I also believe that both spouses
contribute and contribution does not always mean money. Many men complain
that they're only looked on as money machines, then say (imply?) that money
is not necessary to raise a kid in the other person's case. Seems
contradictory.

Maybe start with 50/50 (or some other percentage), then reduce it 10% a year
until nothing, giving the person receiving the money ample opportunity to
either learn a skill or educate themselves. Plus, I would think of it as
not leaving the kids (YOUR OWN kids) in poverty half the time rather than
focusing on the ex. Yet again, we're obsessed with the idea that the spouse
id somehow going to get over while forgetting about the kids.