I think the point is too make sure that kids don’t have a dramatic drop in their quality of life as a result of a divorce which (in my opinion) makes sense
I get ensuring basic necessities are taken care of, by why shelter kids from drops in affluence beyond that?
It is fairly common for individuals to be assessed support based on "earning potential" earnings. This means that obligations are not reduced if someone changes to a less lucrative, but potentially more fulfilling career, or if they voluntarily retire when they could still be working.
In my opinion, it is pretty twisted when earnings aren't based on a % of variable income.
Should the child go to a poor parent with no criminal record, or a rich parent with a criminal record?
That’s also why courts don’t care too much that divorce usually causes a drop in the standard of living of both parents. It doesn’t make th decision any harder.
As long as the drop in living standard results in equalized poverty, it’s not an issue.
Which is pretty messed up, but that’s divorce.
It can seem pretty crappy when you’re watching a court destroy your standard of living to feed your ex-wife’s drug habit.
I’m happily married, and never divorced. But I’ve seen some things.