To our readers: Several weeks ago, we responded to a reader who wanted to know why alimony could not be “formulized” like child support. In response, we received the following message from a male reader that, we believe, points up some areas we did no cover. While some characterizations may be applicable to both sexes, we’re including the comments mostly as written. We welcome your responses:

“Your article in today's paper failed to mention several important shortcomings of our child support system. I don't mean to condemn all fathers because we know there are many responsible fathers and irresponsible mothers; however, the facts are that most "offenders" in the child support system are non-custodial fathers.

• Child support payments due from the non-custodial parent are generally a fraction of the cost of rearing a child. We all know of cases where a father is only obligated to pay $100-150/wk. for support of a child who easily costs his mother 3-4 times that much.

• There is no inflation factor built into child support payments – so payments start off too low and get lower. While the overall inflation rate has been low for several years, the rate for schools, soccer camps, music and swimming lessons, gasoline, etc., have not. Even at an annual inflation rate of 5%, child support today is worth 28% less in 5 years. In 10 years it's worth 65% less.

• When non-custodial parents refuse to voluntarily increase child support, the custodial parent's only recourse is to go to court, incurring not only attorney fees and court costs but also the guilt of being responsible for taking "Mary's sweet Dad" to court.

• When non-custodial parents refuse to pay child support, or some part of it such as camp costs, the custodial parent almost always digs deeper into her pocket to cover the expense. Support payments are skipped with no such thing as accrued interest (the non-custodial parent might try doing that with his car or house payment). The custodial parent's only recourse is, again, to go to court.

• Child support payments include practically nothing for the 24/7 effort a custodial parent spends preparing the child's meals, doing laundry, reading to him/her at night, taking him/her to school, etc. Non-custodial parents frequently zip in, pick up the child, spend a few hours with them, and drop them back off – unlike a custodial parent whose life revolves around the child.

• Non-custodial parents have done a great job of convincing custodial parents, friends, and others that his payments are to the "mean woman who caused him so much grief". In fact, those payments are to support the child he fathered. When we wonder why such flagrant shortcomings exist in our child support laws, we need only recognize that such laws are written by predominately male legislators who have been divorced, have obviously had a bad experience, and are themselves paying child support.”

From Another Reader: “I’m appalled at how celebrities continue to get away with what none of the rest of us can. How can anyone justify an “actor,” who is supposed to be a recovering alcoholic, losing visitation with his daughters after a videotape showing him in a drunken stupor with his daughter present and then, not two weeks later, being granted full custody of the same children? Was the judge sleeping through the trial or was the mother worse than the father? If that man was me, I would never see my kids again.”