> This is a bold assertion that seems extremely unlikely. Most workers work for a wage and cannot trivially become an under the table construction worker to spite Alice.

People working a steady job are more likely to be responsible people. Irresponsible people will tend toward various side hustles, personal businesses, frequent job-hopping, day laboring, etc., because employers get tired of them not being responsible.

Obviously this is a generality and we both know plenty of exceptions.

> You already need to be able to support the kid including the other sides court ordered support in order to get custody in court now.

This varies tremendously by state and the eccentricities of whatever chancery court judge you end up in front of. If you even end up in court - sometimes it can be done administratively.

> You should probably redo the math on that and start with the median individual income and tell me how it went.

I am. This is especially true if daycare is not a factor. I know one particularly egregious case with three children by different fathers and a live-in grandmother. (With the children. Alice here is usually absent. Right now she is living in a different county.)

> Bob Jr being supported unlike the many complexities of child rearing is a function of whether or not sufficient resources are transferred from Nonscustodial parent to custodial parent. Court orders, garnishment, seizure are the only way to get from A to B.

Why do the funds need to be transferred to the custodial parent at all? Moreover, remember this system is taking place in a world where we don't actually know the real custodial percentages; Bob was maybe assigned every other weekend, but maybe in practice Alice is often busy and Bob takes care of Bob Jr. approximately 50% of the time.

If for example - Bob is ordered by the court to pay for health insurance and daycare directly, which is very common...why not say "Bob must also fund a $200/mo SNAP allowance for Bob Jr." It seems clear that if the Bobs of the world believed the money was going to Bob Jr. rather than Alice, it would increase compliance. That's the number one complaint I hear and in many or most cases it seems absolutely justified. I know many particularly egregious examples in my own life, one of them collecting sizable checks from three different fathers and they are not being spent on the kids. In general, I don't think the old narratives apply anymore. In my personal experience nearly every case has simply been Alice felt she could do better than living with Bob, and was functionally rewarded for it. One recent more extreme example: mom of 5 left her husband, who she told me is still today her very best friend, entirely because she wanted more experience and he was all she'd known - she had no issue with him at all. He attempted to fight the divorce to no avail. Usually I hear from Alice she just wasn't in love with Bob anymore. Either way, the larger point is that cash payments to custodial parties is not an effective way to make sure that cash goes towards anything for the child, although in most cases at least some of it does. But that's not much comfort for Bob watching 15% of his check vanish.

I think it is worth considering whether we should try stronger disincentives on splitting households for shallow reasons. Of course, this also comes with the risk that we endanger people experiencing domestic violence. It's a hard tightrope to walk. Sometimes when I hear a particularly bad family court story (recently heard one about kid forced to stay with drug-addicted dad) I wonder if we'd be better off without the system at all and just improve the safety net.

I am speaking as a custodial parent who is owed child support and expects to never receive it, FWIW.