http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1843761211/qid=1135651848/sr=1-1/ref...

A rational analysis of the child support issue is more helpful in explaining the child support problem. Page 40 of The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments By William S. Comanor addresses the phenomenon of the 'Deadbeat Dad' starting with the well known example of the 'baby momma' on welfare scenerio, showing that since dads pay money to the state, and AFDC pays the mother there simply is no incentives for fathers to pay support thru the system, because every $1 paid contributes $0 additional benefit to the child, and only payments 'under the table' directly to the mother or child have any real benefit to the child.

The growing popularity of the concept of 'Child Support Civil Disobedience' reaches a similar conclusion. Many NCP's argue that all parents should and do have a responsibility to care for thier child, but that making these payments thru the state is the least responsible course of action, because doing so funds a corrupt and evil machine that feeds off of the destruction of families, and keeping parents away from thier children. This argument further holds that the only 'real' support a NCP gives a child is the time and money actually spent with, and on a child. In other words, the forced 'child support payment' to the state is viewed as having no benefit to the child, while 'direct' payments such as time and money spent durring 'visits', going on outings, buying the child clothing, schools supplies, etc.. is viewed as the only 'real' means to satisify a parent's moral obligation to support thier child.

The book by Comanor explains the 'Child Support Civil Disobedience' phenomenon thru an analysis of the difference between individual and collective consumption preferences. In a marriage, many 'collective' economic decisions are made by parents, which reflect not only the individual preference of each parent, but each parents concern for the 'collective' preferences of the household. Likewise, the amount each parent allocates to spend on the child is likewise dependant upon collective resources. The problem with child support payments is that it raises the income of the custdial parent, thus raising the consumption preference of that parent, so that only a portion of the NCP's child support payment is now allocated to the child. So, like in the welfare 'baby momma' scenerio, each $1 dollar of NCP support payment is no longer $1 going to the child, but rather a fraction gets apportioned to the child, with the remainder enhancing the consumption of the CP due to the increase income caused by the support payment. So the NCP views 'off the books' support payments as a dollar for dollar contribution to the child, while forced state run 'child support payments' are viewed as contributing little or nothing to the child.

In the case of a high conflict divorce, reasonable parents may conclude that none of thier 'child support payments' does anything at all to support thier child. The all Street Journal published a recent study showing the average legal fees for divorce to be about $78,000. In other words a $500/month child support payment by the NCP to the CP would take 13 years to payoff typical legal fees needed to 'win' the custody battle and resulting child support payment. Thus $1 of 'lawyer support' payment goes to creating the non-custodial parent = $0 benefit to the child. Considering these facts, the idea of 'Lawyer Support' civil disobedience has a much nicer ring to it.

The cost of typical custody dispute legal fees is also about the cost of sending a child to a decent college for 4 years, and for most parents it is not merely consumption 'preferences' but income restrictions that lead many parents to avoid making payments to the state or the CP. Legal fees change the consumption preferences and ability of parents and reduce expenditure on children accordingly.