Then do you also feel that the obligor--the paying parent--should make
an accounting to his or her child/ren about where his or her money goes?

It certainly is "their" money, as it is the obligation of parents to
support their children. In general, when marriages or couples with
children split, it is the mother, who maintains primary physical custody
of the child(ren), whose income suffers. Not always, but generally.
She typically earns less than the father,and then has the burden of
child-related costs, including a diminished earnings potential that has
to do with bearing responsibility for child care. Child supprt
guidelinea are based on the earnings of both parents, and do operate on
a net percentage basis, except in cases of the very wealthy. I happen
to think your percentages are way off, but hte principle is intact.
More commonly, an income equalization model prevails. In the vast
majority of cases, recipients of child support on behalf of minor
children are NOT buying beer for their boyfriends--a disturbing,
misogynist myth. Rather, they are trying to juggle rents or mortgages
against food, medical care, clothing, and otehr costs. And they are
working, as well.
Asking an obligee (the recipient( to account for the child support
received is demenaing and insulting. the amounts mandated by the
guidelines are quite low, and coverleittle more than essentials. And
remember, these are ewssentials for the children, not the custodial
parent.

Actually, that is not true. Arrearages continue to compile, and the
debt still exists. It can be captured many years later, with interest!
And there may be survivor benefits, tax refunds, bank accounts, etc.to
be had.It takes persistence and determination, I am the first to admit,
but the law is on the child's side.

Just for the record--there is no legal connection between child support
and visitation. It is a parent's obligation to pay child support
whether or not he/she sees the child/ren. And many children's advocates
and policymakers argue that it actually is the right of the child to
receive child support, not the decision of the parent to bother with it
or not. I do not mean to sound harsh, as I am a single parent myself,
but even a non-employed non-custodial parent may have health or other
benefits, an inheritance someday, or a job in the future. His or her
children are entitled to it. Something to think about?

It takes patience to work with the IV-D program in California or
anywhere else. But especially if you can tell them where the
non-custodial parent is, even if he or she is in jail, the oputcome can
be worth it, even if the payment is delayed. And by the way, the program
works quite similarly in Australia--it was modeled on the American
program.