What's wrong with American child support

Philip Greenspun writes:

I am part of a team of five authors that has researched divorce laws and customs in the 51 jurisdictions nationwide. For our forthcoming book we have interviewed roughly 100 divorce litigations nationwide as well as in nearly 10 foreign jurisdictions. We have also interviewed research psychologists, retired judges, and legislators.

We found that the U.S. was unique worldwide. We seem to be the only country where simultaneously (1) obtaining custody of a child can produce more cash than going to college and working at the average college graduate wage and (2) custody of a child is up for grabs and therefore open to litigation. In other countries either the maximum child support obtainable will cover only basic expenses, e.g., $2,000 to $8,000 per year in Scandinavia, or there are strong presumptions regarding how a custody dispute will be resolved, e.g., “mom always wins” or “children’s time split 50/50.” The result is that, as a society, we expose our children to far more custody litigation than any other country in the world. In addition to the psychic toll, this costs us close to $50 billion in cash every year and consumes additional public resources for investigating litigation-motivated claims that a custody defendant is a molester, prosecuting and imprisoning parents who don’t pay child support ordered, etc. ...

The incentives are simplest to understand in a state such as Wisconsin, where custody of one child entitles the winner to 17 percent of the loser parent’s pre-tax income (about 33 percent of after-tax income). This means that the person who has a one-night sexual encounter with a surgeon will have one third of a surgeon’s spending power. If that person has a second child with a different surgeon, as predicted by the Danish study above, he or she will now have two thirds of a surgeon’s spending power. If the child support recipient then has a third child with a third surgeon, he or she will have the same spending power as a surgeon. Politicians tell Americans to study STEM subjects and work hard in college, but a thoughtful child support plaintiff can enjoy a comparable spending power without ever attending college, working, or paying income tax. ...

The incentives are simplest to understand in a state such as Wisconsin, where custody of one child entitles the winner to 17 percent of the loser parent’s pre-tax income (about 33 percent of after-tax income). This means that the person who has a one-night sexual encounter with a surgeon will have one third of a surgeon’s spending power. If that person has a second child with a different surgeon, as predicted by the Danish study above, he or she will now have two thirds of a surgeon’s spending power. If the child support recipient then has a third child with a third surgeon, he or she will have the same spending power as a surgeon. Politicians tell Americans to study STEM subjects and work hard in college, but a thoughtful child support plaintiff can enjoy a comparable spending power without ever attending college, working, or paying income tax.

I don't know if anyone is listening to him, but he clearly explains some of the problems with the current system.

Dalrock writes:

Child support, far more than no fault divorce, abortion, and contraception, is the legal force which underpins modern feminism. Child support is the solution to shotgun weddings, unhappy marriages, and strong husbands & fathers. No fault divorce is designed not just to destroy families, but to weaken husbands in all marriages. However child support is the economic arm which makes divorce an attractive option for wives, and therefore makes divorce a credible threat when there are children involved. Child support is also the incentive which makes it more attractive for single mothers to remain single than to marry the father.

He blames conservatives for not recognizing this.

Greenspun is a private pilot and has some sensible comments about the recent German pilot crashing plane, but in the middle of it he says:

Thus my layperson’s perspective is that pilots tend to be reliable, patient, and sober/drug-free. There is one big exception, however: divorce, custody, and child support. Pilots are away from home 10-22 days/month. Suppose the stay-at-home spouse decides he or she is bored and needs to have a lover. If the stay-at-home spouse progresses to the plaintiff stage, most U.S. states will reward that spouse with the house, the children, and at least half of the pilot’s income going forward. The cash and the house go with the kids. The pilot is the slam-dunk loser for any custody lawsuit because he or she was away much of the month and therefore cannot meet the “historical primary caregiver” standard that is used when courts allocate children and the child support profits that accompany them. “Suing a pilot is almost as easy as suing someone deployed overseas in the military,” is how one litigator put it. ...

Thus my layperson’s perspective is that pilots tend to be reliable, patient, and sober/drug-free. There is one big exception, however: divorce, custody, and child support. Pilots are away from home 10-22 days/month. Suppose the stay-at-home spouse decides he or she is bored and needs to have a lover. If the stay-at-home spouse progresses to the plaintiff stage, most U.S. states will reward that spouse with the house, the children, and at least half of the pilot’s income going forward. The cash and the house go with the kids. The pilot is the slam-dunk loser for any custody lawsuit because he or she was away much of the month and therefore cannot meet the “historical primary caregiver” standard that is used when courts allocate children and the child support profits that accompany them. “Suing a pilot is almost as easy as suing someone deployed overseas in the military,” is how one litigator put it.

I would rather fix the family court, of course, but it is increasingly obvious that the family court is not going to get fixed.