It's the technical term for I have the flu and have no time for your B.S. So now I understand you, you PAY CS. Very enlightening.
>>>>>What conditions exist as far as numbers of children after the divorce that didn't before the divorce, you would have been legally required to provide that room regardless. Whether or not the NCP chooses to see their children is not the issue, because CPs can be just as cruel and they can beat their kids. You can what if this to death, but the truth of the matter is that the same number of children existed before the divorce as they did after, and you are legally required to spend more money on your children to provide them rooms whether your divorced or not(where ever that law exists).
And your argument is that ONLY the CP should be the one to spend more. Ahhhh, seeing the light even more.
>>>>>I understand a two bedroom apt/house costs more than a one bedroom, but CS is for the child(ren) and their living conditions should not change too much, but what if you have two girls they can share a room and CS should not be higher? They eat more, need more clothes. I just don't think you can pinpoint a childs share of the rent, do the guidelines take into account sex, I mean a daughter probably uses more clothes than a son and could even eat less. There are so many variables, it is impossible to figure all scenarios.
Again, apples and oranges. It APPEARS (and I may be wrong here since finding you owe CS so that you may be arguing for a reduction in CS for all NCPs) that you don't think CS should INCREASE because of these issues. And yet NO ONE here argued for increasing CS because of housing. Someone just wanted to know what the CURRENT CS covers. And housing and food, utilities, clothing, etc. etc. are what it covers. If the appearances are deceiving, maybe you just want NCPs to not have to pay for ANY of that, not have it figured into the current guidelines, change the guidelines and do away with it all, so that the NCP can pay a pittance and the CP foot the bigger bill....because "you would have been legally required to provide that room regardless".