The Problem - Current Child Support and Parenting Time
The Problems with Current Child Support and Parenting Time
The Problems with the Status Quo Child Support and Parenting Time are Systemic
Below is a brief and incomplete Summary of the Problems with the current Child Support & Parenting Time System. The issues are foundational - the system cannot be solved with tweaks and band-aids.
If we are to boil down and identify the underlying systemic catastrophe to one sentence, it is this: The current system fails to acknowledge that:
Parenting Time is an economic and non-economic asset, not an expense. Period.
Yes, there are expenses associated with raising children.
But those expenses are:
1) Calculated either incorrectly or incompletely by the standard Child Support Formula.
2) Pale in comparison to the economic and non-economic damage inflicted upon the child, and parent, due to the lesser Parenting Time.
3) Fail to account for the economic and intangible value of Parenting Time to both child and parent, and Society.
~ ~ ~
In other words, the actual time between Parent and Child has intrinsic value -- in and of itself -- detached from any financial expenditures associated with modern child raising.
Take this axiom to its logical outworking, and it is clear the CS/PT system has been upside-down and backwards since the 90s inception of the "income-sharing" methodology.
KidsCount is dedicated to fixing this through ballot initiatives and, where applicable, legislation. You can help!
~ ~ ~
More Explanation of the Problem with Child Support and Parenting Time
Before wrapping your mind around that premise, let's take a surface-level look, then deeper dive, into the myriad of problems with the current system.
First, let's clarify the term.
The term “child support" is, in many applications, a misnomer because it implies that the funds calculated and transferred are dedicated exclusively to the direct support and well-being of the child.
This is false.
In reality, statutory child support formulas — such as Michigan’s — are income-based monetary transfer schemes between parents, often with no legal requirement that the receiving parent account for how the funds are used, nor any guarantee that the funds directly benefit the child.
States have attempted to separate parenting time from child support, alleging that a parent's time with their children will not be curtailed if there is an arrearage, for example.
This too, is absurd and false; whether a parent is current or behind on their support, they suffer from the hardship imposed by the system and the constant threat of enforcement through every available mechanism including jail time.
The parent also suffers from the unnatural bureaucratic reduced time with their child.
In other words, Parenting Time, in quantity and quality, is obviously affected by Child Support.
Courts have long recognized that these payments are part of a broader parental financial responsibility framework, but the name “child support” can be misleading, as it obscures the fact that the state formula’s primary mechanism is income redistribution between households, rather than a direct fiduciary arrangement for the child’s benefit.
Further, the “child support” label carries rhetorical and policy consequences: it presumes that the paying parent is not otherwise supporting the child and that the receiving parent’s expenditures inherently align with the child’s needs. This terminology tends to oversimplify complex custody arrangements and can stigmatize payors, while shielding the formula from critical examination.
A more accurate nomenclature — such as “Parental Income Transfer” — would better reflect the underlying legal and economic reality: these payments are designed to equalize household resources according to statutory guidelines, not to directly fund the child’s daily needs in an earmarked manner.
Inaccurate terminology not only distorts public understanding but can also influence judicial attitudes and legislative inertia, perpetuating a system whose function does not match its name.
As such, we will frequently place quotations around the term to bring attention to its misleading nature.
Specific Problems with "Child Support" & Parenting Time
First of all, the current "Child Support" formula relies on an "income sharing" model proposed (not without controversy and competing proposals) in 1987. It was adopted, and adjusted, by most states.
It assumes household expenses are to be shared (transferred) even if those expenses are fixed -- in other words, the non-custodial parent (NCP) is supposed to support the housing expenses of the custodial parent (CP) ... even if the NCP supplies an identical (or greater) household to accommodate the children (same # of bedrooms and so on).
Logic dictates that expenses that are "must haves" by both homes should, therefore, not even be considered as child rearing expenses because they are both supplied and cancel each other out.
The above chart reflects this disparity.
Economist Dr. Comanor and his colleagues go through this in great detail. Here is their paper.
Worse still, as every NCP knows, there is a need to pay a much greater amount during the weekend PT to accommodate meals and activities -- an experience curiously avoided by most custodial parents.
As it stands, on the EXPENSE side of the equation alone, the CS formula charges upwards of 75% too much relative to a comparison of households (per the economic data).
Add that to the extra out-of-pocket expenses by NCP on evenings and weekends, which is outside the factors of the CS formula, and it is clearly lopsided.
There are a number of other problems with Child Support and Parenting Time (CS/PT). The homepage image reflect some of those:
Implicit in all of this discussion is the original premise: That Parenting TIME has value. It is not a cold expenditure; it is an asset.
When seen for what it really is, it is abundantly clear that the NCP not only suffers financially, in the short term, from unsubstantiated "child support" charges, but also from short-term & long-term effects when deprived of the inherent right to time with their children.
-
Non-custodial (single) fathers face mortality rates over three times higher (5.8 vs ~1.9 per 1,000 person‑years) compared to partnered fathers; adjusted risk more than double. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29454821/
-
Single mothers also have lower mortality than single fathers (1.74 per 1,000 person‑years). Same study.
And the children suffer, when deprived of adequate parenting time with both parents:
The weight of research makes it clear: growing up without ease of access or frequency with both parents—whether due to death, separation, migration, institutionalization, or abandonment—can lead to a cascade of lifelong challenges.
U.S. administrative data (5+ million children):
-
A 2025 U.S. Census/UC Merced/UMD working paper links parental divorce to later lower earnings, higher teen births, higher incarceration, and higher early mortality. Importantly for your question, the authors quantify mechanisms and find that greater distance from the nonresident parent (a proxy for reduced time/involvement) explains ~22% of the teen-birth effect and ~15% of the mortality effect. That is, part of the harm follows from reduced ongoing access to the other parent. https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2025/adrm/ces/CES-WP-25-28.pdf
- Contemporary systematic review (2023) likewise defines SPC (shared parental custody) as 30–70% and finds children in SPC generally do better than in lone/primary custody (i.e., <30% with one parent). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/