Editing Child support (section)

===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.