I understand that the non-custodial parent often feels bitter towards the parent granted custody and feels like paying money to that person is adding insult to injury - but I don't understand how a parent could think that absolves her/him of her/his duty towards her/his child(ren). I see people often defend themselves saying that maintenance payments (child-support and alimony) granted are too high - but my limited knowledge of specific cases* tells me the amounts ruled are a reasonable and manageable percent of declared gross income. Also, there are ways and means of renegotiating support payments should the financial burden prove genuinely too great - so it's not like there is no legal route to alleviate an unreasonable burden. * 2 UK cases, 3 French cases, 2 Irish cases, 1 USA case only. So, what the consensus here? In a situation where the custodial parent is sticking to the letter of the law regarding access are these so called 'deadbeat' parents really deserving of that title? Can you really be a good parent if you are unwilling to take financial responsibility for your child?