When people get married, they make a comittment to share their lives together. The higher income earner makes that comittment and is bound to it. The promise is made for life.
In some ways, an argument can be made that family law is charitable in that it relieves the higher income of a lifetime committment based on the length of the marriage. And the parties are further allowed to contract out of SS via a marriage contract. So the prudent high income earner has an out if he/she wishes to take it before the marriage.
When it comes to CS, it is the child's right to enjoy the same standard of living to which it has become accustomed. Yes, it sucks that the theory is eroded in practice by greedy and lazy ex's that see an Easy Street to 15 - 20 years of support for him/her via CS, but what's the alternative?
And the child, being defenseless and blameless, needs that protection. The alternative is to let the higher income earner walk away from his/her comittment and that is NOT in the best interests of the child.
No easy answers at all. But in the case of marriage you have an out to SS. In the case of a child you have to pony up until they are an adult. That may mean ponying up for the ex as well so the child is well taken care of.
|
05-25-2010, 09:22 PM
Similar Threads
