...the money goes from one parent to the other, and not the children, because children aren't conscionable legal entities and so it's difficult to judge them as direct benefactors. In other beneficiary cases, it's feasible to simply hand the money over when the child is 18, but the point of child support is to support them while they're kids.

The other point of child support is to recoup losses and assign responsibility where it belongs (with the parents-- no other actor has more of a claim to responsibility), so yes, it is the father's money (or the mothers in a distressingly small number of cases), and the parent is obligated to pay their debts with it and own up to their responsibilities.

So yes it is completely fair to decide on child support money through the courts and yes it is fair for the court to decide to take money from one parent and give it to another parent and not the children. All of the other options are even less pleasant (like evading responsibility and removing any chance for the children to get support from their father).

It's worth noting that CSS is completely optional, at least in my state. Frequently, divorcees will work out a deal and they only pursue CSS if there's substantial disagreement.