Let me throw this out there as food for thought.
Let me first say I think all children are equal and no child should have to suffer at the hands of adults for any reason.
That said, here's my food for thought:
Husband A and Wife A have two children together, provide for them with HA and WA income. HA leaves home and starts a new life. WA is still home in the setting created with HA and WA's income, except HA took his income with him. The children of HA and WA just lost half of their income or more, as men usually make more, even for the same job, still, now, today, in the real world.
Husband A pays $400 a month child support for two children (it's my dream, so it's $400 a month). Wife A still has the home created by HA and WA, or the problem of finding a suitable home she can afford since HA left, and the two kids, and now she has probably less than one-fourth of the income he used to contribute to providing a home for the children.
Husband A marries again, creates Wife B. Wife B knows Husband A has a $400 per month obligation to his children with Wife A, and that he will be paying $400 per month with increases for the next, say 12 years.
Wife B and Husband A have a duty to themselves and to any children they have, to consider Husband A's income minus $400 as the income that Husband A has to contribute to life with Wife B and any children of this marriage.
If Husband A and Wife B can not afford a family and still meet the obligations to two children already alive and dependent on HA for support, why would HA and WB consider a solution to be to further deprive the two children of HA and WA? Why would Wife B and Husband A not make arrangements to choose a lifestyle they can afford. (Remember when you read the above paragraph you said, let WA find a home she can afford without HA, it's not his problem anymore.) So, why is it WA's problem or HA's and WA's children's problem that HA and WB can't afford children? It isn't their problem and should have no impact on them.
Can you envision what would happen if the laws changed so that 50% of a father's income was set aside for child support and divided by the number of children he has through how many marriages, affairs, or accidents? It would become a baby having contest. Wife A would want as many children as possible just in case Husband A left. Then Wife B would have the same number as Wife A, plus one, so Wife B could get more support paid to her children, or more support money kept for the children of HA and WB.
Nobody likes to hear it, but it is just plain facts and good personal financial management to accept the fact that the children who are already born, already abandoned, and already ordered to receive support DO COME FIRST as it applies to their receiving support.
(You in this posting means, 'one', not any specific person being called 'you')
You can't just count the ordered support as extra money that you want to keep at home; it isn't; it's obligated money; an obligated debt.
You don't buy three cars when you can only afford two, and tell the loan company that the new car is just as important, so you're not going to make the whole payment on cars #1 and cars #2 because car #3 is just as important and you don't think it's right to put one before the other.
You wouldn't dream of doing that with a loan company over cars, but you'd do it over living, breathing, human beings--helpless, dependent children, who did not do anything to deserve a broken home and therefore need to be supported by an absent parent with a new family, wondering why that parent could be happy at home with his new kids and not with them, and knowing that daddy and his new wife don't like having to pay support for them; maybe daddy just wishes they would go away.
Don't think for one minute that children of divorced parents do not feel this way; they do; all of them do at least part of the time, or else they wonder why mommy hates them since daddy left.
