Nah.. that's wrong.
Here's a more clear example:
Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)
Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)
Combined income: $100,000
Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00
Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400
50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.
Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.
Net result man pays woman $260 per month.
See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.
In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.
That's what the is logical conclusion is.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
