I've reviewed the NY Child Support Standards Chart, but don't quite understand the fairness in regards to the non-custodial parent that has 50/50 physical custody.
NY doesn't take into account physical custody when determining child support and I don't understand why. Second, if only one parent works and the other does not, the working parent is by default the non-custodial parent and required to pay 100% child support.
This is all fine, but I don't understand the motive behind this. What motive would the non-working parent ever have to help contribute? Also, in regards to a 50/50 physical custody, what motive would the non-custodial parent ever have to take the kids at all? Whether it's 50/50 or 90/10, the non-custodial parent still pays 100%. Granted, the motive behind 50/50 is that you want to have equal time with the kids, but the non-custodial parent then takes on that extra cost of living to support a true 50/50 split. It's like paying twice for the REAL child support and I don't understand how NY deems this being fair.
Not only that, I reviewed a worksheet where the custodial parent (ie: the non-working deadbeat) can factor in additional child care costs on top of the ridiculous child support payment if that person ever chooses to seek employment. However, the non-custodial parent who currently does that exact same thing to care for the children when with them 50% of the time can't deduct child care cost (based on the same worksheet).
What's frustrating is that NY law is heavily biased against the person that works. Not only that, it deters wanting 50/50 custody because in the grand scheme of things, having 50/50 custody forces many more expenses on the working parent (ie: additional child care, larger apartment to accommodate, food, clothes, etc.)
I understand the basics on NY child support. I reviewed several examples and how child support is computed. What I'm having a hard time accepting is why it punishes the parent with greater (or the only income) so much? I understand that the focus is on providing the children a consistent standard of living, but in doing so the law seems to encourage financial abuse. It seems lopsided.