Not true, at least NOT in North Carolina. The goal of child support is so the child can enjoy the same standard of living as he/she did before the divorce. That means that even if both parents earn equal salaries (or even if the one without custody earns less), the one who is not the primary custodian contributes monies to the custodial parent so the child can enjoy the same standard of living as he/she did while living in a home with both parents (2 incomes).

I don't know of any cases of alimony. I don't think anyone gets it here anymore unless they didn't work the entire time they were married and are mentally or physically incapable of employment. Even then, it normally doesn't last longer than 6 months or a year at most. Every state has different laws though.





>>>This got me thinking. If life is so much easier for married people (in general, not just NZ), why are then so many opting out? Why is marriage not attractive? It can't be just the cost of divorce.
>>
>>
>>Never underestimate the cost of divorce ;--) Those who say divorce is so expensive because it's worth it must not be paying. My ex still has her hands in my pockets so regularly it's like we're back in the dating days.
>
>The difference being in rearrangement of bedfellows?
>
>Now imagine if women were truly equal, to the point where they earned the same. Then there wouldn't be that much of a legal obligation for the other parent to get squeezed for child support. Often, alimony is the way the society in general says "sorry ladies, you'll never achieve what you could if you were male, but take this as an apology".