Payments to Not Parent? Noncustodial Parents as the Recipients of Child Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many marriages, Jon and Sarah Cryer’s ended in divorce. Jon and Sarah are both actors, but their careers are remarkably divergent. Jon, a star of the sitcom Two and a Half Men, makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a month; Sarah has not worked since 2005. For the first five years after their divorce in 2004, Jon and Sarah’s family arrangement was rather traditional—the higher-income, noncustodial parent paid monthly support to the lower-income, custodial parent. Sarah had custody of their son approximately 65 percent of the time, and Jon had custody the remainder. Jon paid $10,000 each month in child support. After a 2009 dependency action brought by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services,1 Jon was awarded nearly complete custody— approximately 96 percent of the time with their son. Jon then sought to reduce his monthly child-support obligation to zero.2 Mara Rubin and Anthony Della Salla were never married, but, over the course of their nine-year relationship, they had one son. After separating, they jointly provided for their son’s custody and support informally. Eventually, however, they sought and received a judicial determination of their son’s custody and support. Anthony was awarded primary physical custody, receiving 56 percent of the overnights, and the two parents were awarded parallel legal custody. Mara, unemployed, petitioned the court for an order requiring Anthony, a millionaire, to pay her child support pursuant to the substantial amount of parenting
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".