Why isn't the custody of children placed with the parent who can support them WITHOUT govt benefits?

This is assuming that the parent IS a FIT parent. Under no circumstances should a child be placed in the care of a UNFIT PARENT. But if the other parent cannot provide for their child, even with receiving child support, then why are the children NOT placed with the parent who can support them instead of the taxpayer's paying for them????Why isn't the custody of children placed with the parent who can support them WITHOUT govt benefits?
Because that fact alone is not determinative of what is in ';the best interest of the children'; which is the standard by which the decision is made.Why isn't the custody of children placed with the parent who can support them WITHOUT govt benefits?
because placing the children shouldn't be made on the basis of money.


If the mom was a stay at home mom, and doesn't have a job or job skill becuase she has been a mom, does she deserve to have the children taken away from her?


If the father is an equally good parent, he should have equal custody, two weeks each or something, but the parent who was parenting during the marriage shouldn't be penalized.
Child placement is always based on the best interests of the child, not the best interests of the taxpayer. If, for example, the parent with the best income was also an ice hole, or was never home, it would not be in the best interests of the child to be placed in that home.