In article , The Dave© says...

Gini52 wrote:
Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
but there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
=====
Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
"discretionary spending." ==
==

Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.
====
I agree. Only the "lifestyle" support (the amount of money ordered that exceeds
the ordinary costs of a child) should be accounted for. This is not difficult.
In fact, it is quite simple. It is only "unreasonable and outrageous" for those
who prefer not to disclose how they spend the money. If the state is going to
mandate a lifestyle, it is only logical that the state mandate the lifestyle be
maintained.
====
====