How does amount of physical custody (parenting time) affect child support?

New York’s Child Support Standards Act (“CSSA”) presumes that the “custodial” parent will pay child support to the “noncustodial” parent in an amount determined by a statutory formula (as set forth and explained in a separate article).  Where one parent has sole physical custody (meaning parenting time, as distinct from legal custody or decision-making capacity) of his or her child, that parent is the “custodial parent.”  So too in situations where one parent has primary, but not sole, physical custody of his or her child.[1]

Which parent, if either, is entitled to receive child support when parents share physical custody equally?

When parents share physical custody equally, the parent with lesser income is deemed the “custodial” parent for the limited purpose of calculating child support, presumptively entitled to receive child support from the parent with greater income.[2]  Notice that “presumptively” does not mean “necessarily,” as courts have broad discretion to consider factors set forth in the CSSA (including “Any…factor[] the court determines [is] relevant in each case”), and modify or override a presumptive child support award based on the specifics of a given case.

Does the custodial parent receive child support in proportion to his or her percentage of parenting time with the child?

The CSSA’s formula for calculating a presumptive, basic child support award does not change based on “how much” physical custody the custodial parent has.  In other words, whether the “custodial” parent is a sole custodian with 100% physical custody, or a perfectly joint custodian with 50% physical custody, the presumptive award remains the same.  This outcome is logical considering that (1) whether one has 50% or 100% physical custody, one must keep a fully functional house for the child(ren); and (2) a rule where greater physical custody was automatically proportional to receipt of greater child support would incentivize parents to increase their parenting time for the wrong reasons.

However, the basic child support award is intended to cover not only shelter for the child(ren), but also food and clothes – expenses that might be expected to increase or decrease along with amount of parenting time.  The court can account for one parent’s greater provision of such essentials by way of the statutory factors and modifying the presumptive award accordingly.[3]

[1] E.g., Tsang v. Zhu, 236 A.D.3d 840, 841 (2d Dept. 2025) (“Here, the stipulation of settlement expressly addressed joint legal custody but was silent as to physical custody of the child. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff is the custodial parent, as she is the parent who has physical custody of the child for the majority of the time”) (internal citations omitted)

[2] E.g., McEvoy v. McEvoy, 219 A.D.3d 1513, 1516 (2d Dept. 2023) (“the plaintiff is considered the custodial parent for purposes of child support, as she is the nonmonied spouse.”); Smisek v. DeSantis, 209 A.D.3d 142, 152 (2d Dept. 2022) (“the parent having the greater pro rata share of the child support obligation, determined after application of the three-step statutory formula of the CSSA, should be identified as the ‘noncustodial’ parent”).

[3] See, e.g., Cicale v. Cicale, 231 A.D.3d 705, 707–08 (2d Dept. 2024).