Increasingly, one hears arguments that joint custody essentially means an equal division of parenting time and that an equal division of parenting time, in turn, means there is no longer any reason for child support to be paid. This way of thinking creates the impression that a child's well-being can be measured with a calendar and a calculator.

Unfortunately, no child lives in percentages. A child's life is not defined by how many nights they spend with each parent. Their world is made up of a sense of security, routines, friends, school, hobbies and emotions. For some children, alternating between two homes may be an excellent solution. For others, however, it means constantly packing bags, commuting between two households and feeling as though they no longer have a real home anywhere.

That is why the 50:50 model cannot be regarded as a universal ideal. It can be an excellent arrangement when it meets the needs of a particular child and the parents are able to cooperate effectively. But an entirely different living arrangement may serve the child's best interests just as well.

A child's best interests are not governed by mathematics.

It is equally mistaken to treat child support as nothing more than a question of dividing days. Public debate often includes the claim that if a child spends equal time with both parents, neither parent should have to pay child support to the other. Such an understanding assumes that the child's expenses are also automatically divided equally.

In reality, the situation is far more complex. Supporting a child is not just about providing food on the days the child is staying with one parent or the other. A child needs a home with a room of their own. They need clothing, school supplies, a computer, sports equipment, extracurricular activities, healthcare and a safe living environment. Many of these expenses are not cut in half even when a child divides their time between two homes.

What's more, some costs are actually duplicated. Both households must provide suitable living conditions for the child. That means two beds, two desks, often two bicycles or at least two sets of everyday essentials. At the same time, larger expenses — such as dental care, extracurricular activities or school-related costs — often remain the responsibility of just one parent.

All of this demonstrates how misleading it is to reduce child support to nothing more than a question of dividing parenting time.

There is another aspect that receives surprisingly little attention in public debate: economic inequality between parents.

The law does not assume that all parents earn the same income. On the contrary. A parent's support obligation is also linked to their financial means. If one parent earns significantly more than the other, fairness does not necessarily mean that both should spend the same amount on the child. Fairness means that both contribute according to their means so that the child does not have to experience unjustified inequality between their parents in their own life.

After all, child support does not belong to the parent. It belongs to the child. And this is precisely where the danger that has gradually crept into the debate on equal parenting lies. At times, it seems that although much is said about the child's best interests, the real dispute is actually about the parents' rights. Who gets more time? Who has to pay less? Who "wins" the court case?

A child should not be the yardstick in such a competition. Equal parenting does not simply mean equal rights. It also entails equal responsibility: the responsibility to be there for the child when they are struggling, the responsibility to cooperate even when the relationship between the parents is difficult and the responsibility to contribute to the child's support in a way that reflects the child's needs rather than a desire to secure the most advantageous position relative to the other parent.

At this point, it is worth asking another uncomfortable question. When we talk about equal parenting, are we really talking about a child's right to both parents or about adults' right to equal time with the child? The two do not necessarily coincide.

A child's right to both parents means that both parents are present in the child's life, care about them and take responsibility for them. That does not necessarily mean the calendar must show exactly the same number of nights with each parent at the end of every month. Sometimes that is possible and is the best solution for the child. Sometimes it is not.

But if the 50:50 model becomes an ideological objective, there is a risk that the child's individual needs will be pushed into the background. The question then is no longer which arrangement is best for a particular child, but rather which arrangement appears fairest from the adults' perspective.

In a state governed by the rule of law, it should be the other way around. A child's best interests are not a slogan. They are a principle that requires every case to be assessed individually. That means that in some cases an equal division of parenting time is in the child's best interests, while in others it is not. In some cases, it is justified that no child support is paid, while in others it is entirely fair that one parent contributes more financially even when parenting time is divided equally. Fairness does not mean everyone receives the same. Fairness means every child receives what they need.

Perhaps it is time to stop reducing family law to percentages and euros. Joint custody, alternating residence and child support are not ends in themselves. They are tools whose sole purpose is to serve the child's well-being. If we forget that simple truth, we may one day discover that although we have created a mathematically perfect balance between parents, we have overlooked the very person for whom the entire system exists.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!