contrary to any state administrative law, or enterpretive law, (private law, forbidden by the constituiton, to be used against the public) the place of abode, where the child lives(actually lives) of the children is the legal custodian. As far as the moneys canceling each out, that isn't likely, unless you know how the true law and intent of the law with the regulations was meant and what it realy stands for, it will be hard to use this claim, but best of luck, for sometimes people get lucky. However so you know what you are against, the states are useing the excuss of suppoprt to gain revenues, and what they have done is misconstrued the intent, and use the person who makes more money in many cases the obligor, regaurdless rather or not they are the custodian or non custodian, Alaska, and New York are to prime examples.
In theory in a equal custody situation it should cancel each out, but even on the fedral side there is no makeings for this, which is a plus for then the states have no authority or regulations to rule otherwise, regulations is a big thing, for no agency( and yes courts are agencys) can not operate without regulations and cannot operate on statutes or administrative law alone.44.62.360 administrative procedures act.