Not everyone has money for divorce. If we really want to make it better, we can lower filing fees or get rid of them entirely. Getting married is cheap in a lot of places, and that means poor folks can have the legal benefits of marriage. It is a shame that poverty can keep you there.
50/50 custody isn't always good for the child, though. I know a kid that really had anxiety issues, in no small part because 50/50 makes for somewhat unstable housing.
There isn't really a such thing as 50/50 child support. The bigger reason for child support is because one parent obviously makes more than the other one, and the support is supposed to ease the burden. I'd rather expand the safety net so that less support is needed. Not only that, but I'd make sure that the support receiver gets the money every month regardless of whether or not the other parent pays. You can pay support to the government instead of directly to the other party. Also of note: Support tends to be higher or lower depending on custody - and to be fair, it applies to never-married relationships as well. I'd also note that we should be sure that both parties can keep up proper residences for the children. Visitation means you need the house space (bedrooms) for the children, for example, and support shouldn't mean that you lose access to your children.
Paying to the government instead of directly to the other party is such an excellent idea it kind of blows my mind that this is the first time I've heard it. So many unnecessary disputes around spousal/child support that could be solved with that measure. The government is already good at collecting and distributing money; that's basically what it's for. Seems blindingly obvious.
I know it is done in other places - and I think you are right. It could simply eliminate some anxiety and arguments - it takes someone's ability to pay out of the picture completely. Anything that makes it easier to be a good parent with one's ex should be encouraged.
That's how it is in Quebec/Canada and I'm surprised it's not the norm. It's indexed to inflation. Either party can request a re-evaluation if their situation has changed.
Here over 50% of kids are born from unmarried parents, and that proportion has steadily increased through the years. 20% of couples separate before their first child is 5 years old. 50/50 parenting is the norm. Might sound scary, but as someone in that situation, it took some time to get used to, but worked out fine.
Common law covers child support but not spousal support. It can be a major risk if one spouse is financially dependent on the other (see Cirque du Soleil, Éric vs Lola).
50/50 custody isn't always good for the child, though. I know a kid that really had anxiety issues, in no small part because 50/50 makes for somewhat unstable housing.
There isn't really a such thing as 50/50 child support. The bigger reason for child support is because one parent obviously makes more than the other one, and the support is supposed to ease the burden. I'd rather expand the safety net so that less support is needed. Not only that, but I'd make sure that the support receiver gets the money every month regardless of whether or not the other parent pays. You can pay support to the government instead of directly to the other party. Also of note: Support tends to be higher or lower depending on custody - and to be fair, it applies to never-married relationships as well. I'd also note that we should be sure that both parties can keep up proper residences for the children. Visitation means you need the house space (bedrooms) for the children, for example, and support shouldn't mean that you lose access to your children.