Editing Child support (section)

==Criticism==
{{More citations needed section|date=November 2020}}
{{See also|Fathers' rights movement#Child support}}

===Implementation flaws and side effects===
In jurisdictions where child support is reduced or partially reduced when care is provided by both parents, there may be a financial incentive for the resident parent to restrict the amount of time the other parent can see the children. If a parent seeks a custody order with the goal of maximizing child support, the effect could be to reduce the amount of contact that the children have with the other parent without regard to their needs or wishes.

Payment is not made to children but between parents, and the payee is not required to account for how child-support money is spent. Critics of child support argue that, as a result, the support payments do not need to be used to support the child and can be regarded as a punishment to the parent who is paying child support. A response to that criticism is that if a parent is caring for the children, that parent will incur costs in providing that support, even if they have no duty to account for their expenditures in support of the child.

Critics of child support, such as fathers' rights groups, complain that the law does not necessarily require that the child support money be used for the child.<ref name="crowley">{{cite book|last1=Crowley|first1=Jocelyn E.|title=The Politics of Child Support in America|url=https://archive.org/details/politicschildsup00crow|url-access=limited|date=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0521535115|pages=[https://archive.org/details/politicschildsup00crow/page/n198 183]–184}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-silberberg/child-support-accountabil_b_760143.html|title=Child Support Accountability: Where Is It?|first=Fred|last=Silberberg|date=10 November 2010|website=huffingtonpost.com|access-date=16 March 2018}}</ref> Barring unusual circumstances, most jurisdictions do not require accountings on the request of a child support payor.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Morgan|first1=Laura W.|title=Whose Money Is It, Anyway? A Custodial Parent's (Non)Duty to Account for Child Support|journal=American Journal of Family Law|date=2000|volume=14|issue=1|pages=15–22}}</ref> The custodial parent also has a duty to support the children,<ref name="Definition of child support"/><ref name="acf.hhs.gov"/><ref name="csa.gov.au"/><ref name="ird.govt.nz"/><ref name="csa.gov.uk"/><ref name="capegateway.gov.za"/><ref name="ReferenceB"/> yet in countries like Canada, it has been shown that "over a wide range of reasonable assumptions, the [custodial parent] does not financially contribute to the support of the children but in fact receives a net wealth transfer from the system."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sarlo|first1=Christopher A.|title=An Assessment of the Federal Child Support Guidelines|newspaper=Fraser Institute |date=2014|url=https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/an-assessment-of-federal-child-support-guidelines}}</ref> Child-support amounts are considerably higher than the costs of raising children.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Comanor Sarro and Rogers|title=Research in Law and Economics|date=2015|volume=27|page=209-251}}</ref>

Critics of child support suggest that support orders carry the threat of state violence to give the resident parent a degree of financial control over the non-resident parent, and even that the enforcement of child support can be considered domestic violence or abuse. No jurisdiction has accepted that argument, and a parent ordered to pay child support will not face any legal consequence if payments are made as ordered by the court.

Some parents argue that they should be permitted to directly provide for their children, with those provisions being credited against child support or taking the place of any payment to the other parent. Some argue that being ordered to pay child support reduces their ability to directly provide for their children. However, courts uniformly recognize that the custodial parent will incur expenses for the care of children that a non-custodial parent might prefer not to pay, and that giving the non-custodial parent direct control over how child support is used would in many cases result in abusive or controlling behavior by the child support payor.

Some child-support laws and formulas do not adequately reflect the extent to which the child-support payor supports the children, and the expenses the payor incurs in caring for the children. Many jurisdictions have tried to develop child-support formulas and models that take into account the extent to which parents share custody, and adjust child-support amounts in [[shared parenting]] arrangements in relation to the division of parenting time. In the UK a "non-resident" parent caring for the children 174 nights a year would have to pay the other parent (4/7) 57% of the maintenance they would have paid if they had provided no care.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325219/how-we-work-out-child-maintenance.pdf |title=How we work out child maintenance |publisher=www.gov.uk |access-date=2019-10-23}}</ref> Thus, a "non-resident" parent may be obligated to pay up to 17% (31%*4/7) of their income as child support.

In the United States, each state receives money from the federal government to offset some of the expenses it incurs in processing paternity, spousal support and child-support cases.<ref>{{cite web|title=42 U.S.C. 655|url=https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0455.htm|website=Social Security Administration|access-date=13 June 2017}}</ref> It has been argued that this creates an incentive for each state to enforce larger than necessary support orders, since doing so creates a larger financial incentive for each state. However, as a matter of law, when the federal government mandates state action it is broadly required to reimburse the state for the cost of the required action. It has also been argued that a Defendant in a child-support matter cannot get a fair trial due to the fact that the Courts have a financial interest in keeping child-support orders higher than necessary. However, there has never been a showing that states have created or modified their child-support formulas in such a manner, nor would doing so actually increase federal reimbursements.{{cn|date=June 2021}}

Another criticism of child support is that it can be difficult for a man who has been mistakenly identified as a child's father, or who later discovers that he is not a child's biological parent, to be excused from an order to pay child support, and recover the money already taken from him.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2013/03/dismiss_lawsuit_by_man_who_was.html|title=Dismiss lawsuit by man who was wrongly jailed and forced to pay child support, U.S. judge urged|work=Penn Live|date=26 March 2013|accessdate=17 May 2021}}</ref><ref>{{ cite news | url=http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1784552.htm | work=ABC News | location=Australia | title=High Court rejects father's deceit claim | date=11 November 2006 | first=Australian | last=Broadcasting Corporation }}</ref><ref>[https://www.wxyz.com/news/region/detroit/court-finally-stops-trying-to-make-detroit-man-pay-child-support-for-child-that-isnt-his Court finally stops trying to make Detroit man pay child support for child that isn't his]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Harris |first1=Leslie |title=The Basis for Legal Parentage and the Clash between Custody and Child Support |journal=Indiana Law Review |date=2009 |volume=42 |page=611}}</ref>

===A man's right to choose===
Child-support policies have been criticized by [[fathers' rights]] advocacy groups, as well as by some [[feminists]], who state that child-support policy violates gender equality and denies reproductive choice to men.<ref name="A man's right to choose">{{cite news|url=https://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/|title=A man's right to choose|last1=Young|first1=Kathy|date=Oct 19, 2000|work=Salon.com|access-date= May 10, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/|title=Is Forced Fatherhood Fair?|last1=Shrage|first1=Laurie|date=Jun 12, 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=January 29, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2012/06/unexpected_pregnancy_should_a_man_be_responsible_for_supporting_a_baby_he_didn_t_want_.html|title=Should a man be responsible for supporting a baby he didn't want?|last1=Roiphe|first1=Katie|date=Jun 8, 2012|publisher=Slate.com|access-date=January 29, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fatherhood_a_mans_choice_partner/|title=Make fatherhood a man's choice!|last1=March|first1=Anna|date= Nov 2, 2013|work=Salon.com|access-date=January 29, 2014}}</ref> Child support is based principally upon income and custody arrangements and not on gender, and male and female parents report similar levels of satisfaction with support awards.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sheets |first1=Virgil L. |last2=Braver |first2=Sanford L. |title=Gender Differences in Satisfaction with Divorce Settlements |journal=Family Relations |date=July 1996 |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=336 |doi=10.2307/585506|jstor=585506 }}</ref>{{cn|date=June 2021}} As child support is payable for the benefit of the children, not the parent,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hatcher |first1=Daniel L. |title=Child Support Harming Children: Subordinating the Best Interests of Children to the Fiscal Interests of the State |journal=Wake Forest Law Review |date=2007 |volume=42 |page=1036}}</ref> courts are not sympathetic to the idea that a parent should be able to refuse to support a child by claiming that he would have preferred that the child not be born.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Purvis |first1=Dara E. |title=Expectant Fathers, Abortion, and Embryos |journal=Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics |date=2015 |volume=43 |issue=2 |pages=330–340 |doi=10.1111/jlme.12249|pmid=26242955 |s2cid=41154821 |url=https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1268&context=fac_works }}</ref>

Child-support guidelines and policies have also been criticized for requiring boys and men that are victims of sexual assault to pay child support to the women who sexually assaulted them;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume152/issue6/London152U.Pa.L.Rev.1957(2004).pdf|title=A Critique of the Strict Liability Standard for Determining Child Support in Cases of Male Victims of Sexual Assault and Statutory Rape|last1=London|first1=Ellen|year=2004|publisher=University of Pennsylvania|access-date=February 3, 2014|archive-date=April 27, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190427195728/https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume152/issue6/London152U.Pa.L.Rev.1957(2004).pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/male-statutory-rape-victim-nick-olivas-must-pay-child-support-2014-9?r=US&IR=T|title=Arizona Is Requiring A Male Statutory Rape Victim To Pay Child Support|work=Business Insider|date=2 September 2014|access-date=16 December 2020}}</ref> a precedent-setting case in US law is ''[[Hermesmann v. Seyer]]'', whereby a male victim of [[statutory rape]] was required to pay child support to the mother. In the case of ''S.F. vs T.M.'' (1996), a man who produced evidence that the mother of the child raped him while he was unconscious was nevertheless ordered to pay child support.<ref>[https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-civil/1996/2950025-0.html https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-civil/1996/2950025-0.html SF v. State Ex Rel. TM]</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Higdon|first=Michael J.|date=2011|title=Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child Support|journal=Georgia Law Review|language=en|volume=46|issue=|pages=|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1761333|s2cid=142616163|url=https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.2139/ssrn.1761333}}</ref> Men who assert that a child was conceived as a result of deception, birth-control fraud or [[sperm theft]] have also challenged their obligation to pay child support.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sheldon|first=S|date=2001|title='Sperm Bandits', Birth Control Fraud and the Battle of the Sexes|journal=Legal Studies|language=en|volume=21|issue=3|pages=460–480|doi=10.1111/j.1748-121X.2001.tb00176.x|s2cid=144835132|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/90037.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Faille|first=Nicole|date=2015|title=Erasing Gender Privilege in Nonconsensual Procreation: An Argument for an Equitable Change to the Law Regarding the Unauthorized Use of Sperm|journal=Suffolk University Law Review|language=en|volume=48|issue=|pages=429–460|url=https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/3/1172/files/2015/11/Faille_Note.pdf}}</ref>

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney, coined the term [[Paternal rights and abortion|male abortion]] in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.<ref>McCulley, Melanie G. (1998). The male abortion: the putative father's right to terminate his interests in and obligations to the unborn child. The Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. VII, No. 1.</ref> Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes [[pregnancy|pregnant]], she has the option of [[abortion]], [[adoption]], or sole parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized [[gender equality]], that in the earliest stages of pregnancy, the putative (alleged) father should have the same [[human rights]] to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options. McCulley's male-abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child, the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally (in the same way a sperm donor usually rescinds all parental rights).

This same concept has been supported by a former president of the feminist organization [[National Organization for Women]], attorney [[Karen DeCrow]], who wrote that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."<ref name="A man's right to choose"/>

The legal concept was tried in the case of ''[[Dubay v. Wells]]'' and was rejected by the court, since legislation in the various jurisdictions currently sets forth guidelines for when child support is owed as well as its amount. Accordingly, legislation would be required to change the law to implement McCulley's concept.