Too often, one parent who never entered into a marriage or family agreement finds themselves carrying a disproportionate financial burden through child-support orders — even though they never agreed to share their income, assets, or lifestyle with the other parent.

When two individuals choose to marry, they make an explicit decision to merge their lives. Their financial choices become intertwined, and the law rightfully treats them as a single unit. In that context, support obligations after separation make sense: they’re an extension of a contract the couple willingly entered.

But when two people are not married, there was no such agreement. The decision to engage in an intimate relationship — even one that leads to a child — is not the same as agreeing to a lifetime of financial dependency with that person. Yet, the family court system often fails to distinguish between the two.

---

The Problem

The legal system treats child support as a strict financial obligation, often calculated with formulas that ignore consent, context, or shared expectations. In practice, this means:

• One parent can unilaterally decide to have or keep a child — even against the other parent’s stated wishes — and later compel ongoing financial support.
• Wealthier parents, regardless of intent or relationship history, can be forced into decades of payments and expenses that go well beyond basic child needs.
• Courts rarely examine how a child came into existence or whether both parties agreed to parenthood under shared financial expectations.

This dynamic can lead to misuse of the system — where one party “opts in” to parenthood financially, while the other “opts in” only emotionally or strategically.

---

The Balanced Co-Parenting Initiative believes that:

• Marriage and non-marriage must be legally distinguished. When two people marry, they consent to financial merging. When they don’t, financial responsibility should be strictly tied to the child’s needs — not to the other parent’s lifestyle or income.
• Child support should ensure care for the child, not subsidize adult inequality. The law must protect children, not serve as a financial equalizer between adults who never agreed to partnership terms.
• Consent matters. If one parent conceives a child without the other’s informed consent (for example, discontinuing birth control or misrepresenting contraception), the financial burden should not default entirely to the other parent.
• Reform is overdue. As with attorney-fee awards, child-support rules should reflect the realities of modern relationships, where most intimacy occurs outside marriage.
  • According to the CDC, over 40% of U.S. births now occur outside marriage — yet our legal and financial frameworks still rely on assumptions from an era when sex outside marriage was rare or stigmatized.

---

What We Want to See Changed

• Reevaluate support formulas to distinguish between marital and non-marital relationships.
• Cap support obligations to reflect the actual cost of raising a child, not the income gap between parents.
• Protect consent and fairness by allowing courts to consider reproductive decisions and relationship context in support determinations.
• Promote co-parenting engagement — not financial punishment — as the true measure of a parent’s contribution.

---

Why This Matters for Children

When financial obligations are rooted in resentment or unfairness, it harms everyone — especially the child. The current system can discourage capable parents from maintaining involvement, bad actors can use the fear of Child Support as leverage to push a capable parent out of the child’s life, and capable parents experience fear of ongoing exploitation.

The Balanced Co-Parenting Initiative advocates for a system where capable, responsible parents are encouraged — not financially punished — to stay engaged in their children’s upbringing. Fairness between parents is foundational to a stable and healthy environment for the child.