in America they 'belong' (and that's not really even the right word) to and are considered to be more under the Mother's wing.
I wonder why that is. Surely, the west is traditionally patriarchal, and even today the vast majority of children, at least those born within marriage, still receive their father's name. Then, in case of divorce, the mother takes the children, but the father still has to pay. I just cannot see the logic in that. Shouldn't the one who pays also have the children live with him or her?
In Sweden, the usual model is that children spend a week with one parent, then a week with the other parent, and each parents pays during his or her week. Makes more sense.