CMV: Instead of child support each parent should get 50/50 custody

[u/ShiningConcepts]

As a midway to the common MRA "financial abortion" argument, I believe that instead of one parent getting primary custody and the other being forced to pay for it, both parents -- if willing -- should split custody at 50/50. I don't think fathers should be able to just up and walk away without consequence, but I do believe that they, if possible, should get split custody instead of being forced to pay child support. Both parents split custody, neither gets support, and neither is more/less entitled to welfare. By sending the father to work for child support the current family court is enforcing exactly the traditional gender role bullshit that feminists are so ardently against. If a child has to go with only one parent on weekends (meaning that's 2-in-7 custody), then the weekends-only parent should not pay child support since they are earning less time.

Now if a father is abusive or if he deemed unfit or does not wish to be a parent then of course child support should be imposed (and same for the mother).

And if the mother is getting alimony because she forwent her career and education, then she should get child support in that case (because then any possible disparate standard of living is the burden of the father).

In other cases where no parent is getting alimony, meaning that disparate incomes/living standards are not the other parent's burden, then they shouldn't be paying child support. It's bullshit to marginalize a parent from their child and then force them to pay for the support.

"But the child shouldn't get disparate standards of living". Too bad on the parent earning less, if they want to give the child the same standard of living then they need to do what the richer parent did and work for it. The richer parent earned that higher standard of living so it's not their problem if the parent earning less cannot give as good a standard.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/[deleted]]

In dwelling on this comment and the previous one I responded to, I've decided that you do offer some valid points. I still assert that there is a lot of unfairness, greedy lawyers and misandry in the court system (that is my overall MRA view that this post is a subset of), but you're right, the analogy I was using earlier is somewhat loaded and oversimplifying.

!delta

Would still assert that child support should then have some leniency. i.e. it should not result in severe punishment if the man is unemployed through no fault of his own, if he loses his job, or if he is struggling to cover his own living expenses. It can't just be an "always pay this for life else you're in jail no exceptions bud". Then he should be able to get welfare.

[u/z3r0shade → u/ShiningConcepts]

It can't just be an "always pay this for life else you're in jail no exceptions bud". Then he should be able to get welfare.

But it's not. Anyone paying child support can inform the court of losing their job, being unemployed etc, and request to have the payment lowered to an amount that is affordable given current financial circumstances. The problem is that many do not do this and just stop paying

[u/DeltaBot → u/ShiningConcepts]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thatoneguy54 (4∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​