Yes -- and I am sure you are in the right profession too. First -- the amount one pays in "taxes" is his or her own money. (I assume we are talking property taxes, but the concept certainly applies to sales taxes, entertainment taxes, etc.).
When you elect to live somewhere, you agree to pay those taxes. You may hate it, but you have to pay them. You might fight to change it, but you have to pay them. When you buy items, you have a bit more control, as you may shop prudently and save on some sales tax. Heck, you may move to a state without income tax and avoid that state obligation, but it is definitely your own money. So, in a sense, you are not incorrect. It is his money -- just like the 4K I paid my mortgage company was my money too -- until I paid my obligation. Then it became theirs.
Because most people who get divorced can't work out their own problems and obligations, they shift that burden to the courts. (Shifting the cost as well). The Courts apply the law of the jurisdiction to try to find resolution for couples who can't, or in most cases won't. It's not a perfect solution, as every case is truly different. But, don't blame the Courts or the legislature that made the rules, they were just stuck with finding a resolution for parties who will not.
Child support -- as opposed to alimony -- is meant for the support of the child or children. The Court system, again filing the role of those who will not, makes a host of rules to try to do this fairly. One rule, of course, is that the kids should not pay for the problems of the divorce. (For example, unlike as has been suggested here, the kids should not be forced from their standard of living because now that the parents are no longer married, they should only get no brand cloths, live in an apartment, and shop at the dollar store.) The system is an advocate for the children, or should be. So, when parents cannot or will not work it out, the system does no punish them.
The dad and mom here both have an equal obligation to provide support for the kids. This state apparently has decided that their is value in a parent staying home with the kids. This wife wanted to go part-time, but her Husband's clinic said no. (I am sure he had nothing to do with that!). She elected to stay home, and the Court had to determine if she was doing so solely to avoid her obligation for support. On the facts, it found she was not. So, it found that the father, in order to meet his part of the obligation, no had to pay in child support 4K a month, over and above whatever support he apparently pays while the kids are in his physical custody. That's his obligation. Sure, the money was his, and some of it might have continued to be his, or under his control had he made different choices -- but he did not, and now it is an obligation he must pay.
When I say the money is not his -- I mean the money is an obligation -- it is not the wife's money either. It is for support of the children. That is the difference between child support and alimony.
Now -- am I in the right forum? Well, if being pro-life, anti-tax, pro-military, and pro-personal responsibility are the values generally well-regarded here, then yes.
In this case, however, we have two people who we not pro-family. Two people who could not be responsible in their choices in life. Two people who could not resolve the support of their children, leaving that final decision to the agents of the government. So -- having done so -- it is hard for me, as a person charged with absorbing the cost of the criminal justice system, the expense and cost and loss of productivity resulting from legislatures and courts having to fashion rules for people like this, to care that these people got stung, one way or another. Nor am sympathetic to the father who rolled the dice in the Courts rather than working this out.
If you can't take personal responsibility for your obligations, and you must have others -- e.g. the government -- resolve them for you, you should not complain about the result. Backing someone who uses his money to spite his wife, and who wants to reduce the quality of life for his kids -- on top of getting divorced that is -- and who looks to the government to solve his family problems, seems to me to be something odd in this forum.
Are you sure you are in the right forum?
The father has the children half the time. He pays for their upkeep and needs during that time. The mother has the children half the time. She pays for their upkeep and needs during that time. Mom decides she doesn't want to work, because the kids need her, so Dad should have to pay for Mom's lifestyle? Not unless you're in Bizzarro World or family court, and your nine paragraphs of senseless ranting won't change that one bit.
Even with your cute backpeddling, to say that it isn't his money is, again, ludicrous. Your position that it's only "his" until the government takes it away as an "obligation once again shows that you are probably in the wrong place. It's very easy to spout off platitudes like "pro-life, anti-tax, pro-military, and pro-personal responsibility". It's quite another to apply them to particular situations. Your personal problems have obviously blinded you to the idiocy of this situation. You talk the talk, but when it's time to walk the walk, you come up way lame.