Interesting thought process. "the CP forces the child to pay rent and utilities then what is the difference?" Why should the CP force the child to do anything with money from NCP? Why shouldn't the NCP have the right to decide what to do with that money if the child isn't living in the CP's home?
Let's say the child goes to college away from home and took out loans to do so, got some grants, etc. and is doing work study. Why should the NCP pay any monies directly to the CP, when the CP is no longer caring for the child in that home? Shouldn't the CP give her/his monies to the child as should the NCP?
My problem is that the NCP has a CO giving the CP CS money- whose to say that CP will actually use it on the child, but instead use it to relish her own lifestyle?
Example- NCP pays $1200/month on CS. Child goes to school practically free (after scholarships, etc.), lives in the dorms, and does workstudy. The CP sends the child $500/month for extra costs and pockets the rest. So in this case CP ends up $700 ahead and pays NOTHING towards the child's well-being. This is why I think NCP should pay child directly after the age of 18.