Why do I pay child support?

[ProPerDoper]

What is the name of your state? CA

Okay, okay...it's a trick question.... Hopefully it got some attention.

I understand a parent's obligation to support their children. I understand the legislature's intentions when attempting to equalize the incomes in both homes under the
DissoMaster program, (or SupportTax, or other...) and I understand (somewhat) the basis for the timeshare allocation when calculating support. What I don't understand however, is why, for example, when I have 67% primary physical custody of our two minor children, I pay my ex support.

Now, granted it is minimal, and I do make more income than she does. I understand how the algorithm might work when you consider these factors to an end resulting in my payment to my ex, and for years I've simply accepted this without thinking much about it. However tonight it hit me, and I asked myself, why is this?

The code says that it intends that the income of the non custodial parent might go to improve the household of the custodial parent. (or something to that affect) How does it make sense that with only 33% custody, support would be received by my ex to improve her household?

How often does this occur? What's the reasoning behind it?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? CA

Okay, okay...it's a trick question.... Hopefully it got some attention.

I understand a parent's obligation to support their children. I understand the legislature's intentions when attempting to equalize the incomes in both homes under the
DissoMaster program, (or SupportTax, or other...) and I understand (somewhat) the basis for the timeshare allocation when calculating support. What I don't understand however, is why, for example, when I have 67% primary physical custody of our two minor children, I pay my ex support.

Now, granted it is minimal, and I do make more income than she does. I understand how the algorithm might work when you consider these factors to an end resulting in my payment to my ex, and for years I've simply accepted this without thinking much about it. However tonight it hit me, and I asked myself, why is this?

The code says that it intends that the income of the non custodial parent might go to improve the household of the custodial parent. (or something to that affect) How does it make sense that with only 33% custody, support would be received by my ex to improve her household?

How often does this occur? What's the reasoning behind it?

Its to ensure that the children's needs are equally met in both homes. Its unusual for a parent with the greater amount of custody time to end up paying child support, but it does occasionally happen, with the right set of variables.

I know a CP mom in my state who also has to pay a minimal amount of child support to the NCP dad....so its doesn't just happen to men.

Also, other factors play into the child support calculation, such as medical insurance, daycare etc., so sometimes those factors cause it to happen, even in cases where incomes are equal.

 

[ProPerDoper]

Its to ensure that the children's needs are equally met in both homes. Its unusual for a parent with the greater amount of custody time to end up paying child support, but it does occasionally happen, with the right set of variables.

I know a CP mom in my state who also has to pay a minimal amount of child support to the NCP dad....so its doesn't just happen to men.

Also, other factors play into the child support calculation, such as medical insurance, daycare etc., so sometimes those factors cause it to happen, even in cases where incomes are equal.

I understand the extra variables that might come into play also. However, none apply in my case. There are no extra charges input for child care, medicals, travel for visitation, etc. Additionally, my ex has no mortgage payment. None. She purchased her home cash after dissolution, compared to my monthly mortgage amount of $2700.00. I probably wouldn't feel so bad about it if I felt she cared for the kids equally, but constantly she avoids purchases of clothing and other items, as her way of increasing my support.

Although the system was designed to provided equally in both homes, it has failed us, I believe. She looks upon her support check as income to her, not support available for the kids.

Support is to be heard soon again. (We're arguing over venue of counties first) Since the judge has so much descretion in connection with support, has there been consideration of an argument against the custodial parent paying that was successful in the past? (Or even carefully considered for that matter)