Lemon pepper my justice

Even then, if he wanted his kid to go to a better school he can pay for it himself without having to give money to the baby mama or if he wants his kid to have better clothes, unless he signed away his parental rights he probably is allowed to take his kid shopping for some clothes or even give them as gifts.
Plus, $2,800 is more than enough to spend on a kid each month. It's to support the child, not the baby mama. That's alimony and only applicable if they were married.

I don't think what I am trying to say is coming off very well. As a parent if one has a drastically different life than the other (i.e Rick Ross vs a standard solo mum) the child will naturally think its great that the father can provide (as gifts) clothing and toys etc. This is not fair on the other parent and is a key reason why child support is a thing. The child's lifestyle should not differ that significantly when living with one parent vs another and the money given is to allow the child (not the mother) to continue living a stable life. This means that if the child needs a new pair of shoes the lesser earning parent is able to afford the same shoes that the higher earning parent would so that the childs viewpoint of the parent is not affected because they can't provide in the way the other can. It's undoubtedly a very flawed system and often is unfairly used by parties on both sides, however in its intended form, all that would be done is for the kid stability.

I get where both sides are coming from. I upvoted that comment that got dv’d. a system that rewards people for simply having a baby by the wealthy isn’t fair. There’s no reasonable way to give the mom more money and make sure she’ll use it on the kid, and no way to know how much the father would have spent raising the child- but there is another dimension to this. We tend to look at things from our perspective of what “a lot” of money is. To the wealthy $2k isn’t huge. Things like tickets and child support should be adjusted for income, it balances the system and makes sure the rich can’t do whatever they want. That said perhaps that money doesn’t all go to the rich persons baby mamma. Maybe a large chunk goes to pay for dead beat dads or mothers who’s baby daddy can only afford a couple hundred a month. The women can’t get rich off a baby, support is income proportional still, and kids without get a chance at better lives. All wins.

@mickeymouse I understand what you're saying, however, the mother most likely isn't wanting it for the child, most of it would go to herself, and if the judge said she should get a job, means she's relying on his child support for sole income.

Hmmm... well... rick Ross bought his newborn daughter Gucci baby shoes she’ll outgrow in a few months, gold jewelry, and a jumper saying “daddy spoils me.” Now let’s consider a few things: if his baby mama had a good job and quit counting on that rick Ross money- maybe she’s a gold digger. If she quit to raise their child, she’s entitled to support for the income and potential income she lost for that. Either way Ross knew her financial situation when they had a child (or should have) as well as that he’d need to care for any children resulting from sex. It only makes sense in being fair to assume IF they were together he would provide for his children the same. Seeing that he dressed a newborn in Gucci shoes, it’s safe to assume his share of expenses would be a large sum. A college fund (its unlikely ross’s Child wouldn’t be provided such) and other expenses. Oh- and that “gold digger” cancelled a support hearing so she could go visit him while he was in the hospital. So there’s that.

I have to disagree...the child support system is based off an old ass system designed to support mother and child because the rules are when mothers used to stay home and take care of the children. We don't live in the same world. It takes two parents to raise a child not one staying home and taking care of the home while the other makes all the money.

I agree the system is deeply flawed. Not just child support, but divorce, family court- many laws assume women are weak, powerless, foolish, ignorant, or in need of more help than a man just because they are women that’s antiquated. But what isn’t antiquated is the fact that none of that has anything to do with a child. Regardless of whether their parents are split up, wether their parents make bad decisions or anything else, we have a certain responsibility to make sure that children are taken care of by their parents. There’s no way to know how a parent would treat a child their whole life had the parents stayed together. But how a parent treats any other children is a good indication of what you know they allocate to care for their child. There’s no reason that a percent of that figure shouldn’t be given to any children not in the household as well. Unless we get rid of inheritance and familial property transfer- which I do advocate.