In a utopian world, men and women would only have sex in loving, committed relationships and all children would be raised by loving, respectful, responsible parents.
But that's not the world we live in. So:
{snipped, and moved to reply}
If the state is truly interested in the well-being of children, it should be helping fathers provide meaningful support, not impeding them, jailing them, and trapping them in a lifetime of state servitude.
1. Men should be able to choose to withdraw support for a child before it is born. A simple, legal opt-out. "I do not consent to being a parent."
They have that ability. It's called not coming into someone you don't know or trust.
2. Back child support should be able to be forgiven by a judge based on demonstrated circumstance.
Ok... Why, and under what circumstance? Unless the answer is "the child was free that year", I can't think of a good reason, other than severe illness, or other inability to work.
3. Child support should be based on the demonstrated needs of the child and the cost of living of the child's environment, not on the relative earning power of the parents and should not be easily changed unless need can be demonstrated -- no more dragging people back into court over and over.
For that to work, you need a utopian scenario where fathers don't become dead beat dads. And of course earning power would dictate - the cost of living of the child's environment should match the environment the child would have if the father was in the picture. Aka, the child shouldn't suffer because the father is a selfish asshole that wants nothing to do with them, and didn't have the good sense to ensure his nut butter didn't turn into a kid that requires stuff.
4. No one should ever go to jail for inability to pay child support.
I'm not aware that they do. Inability to pay and failure to pay are not the same thing. I could be wrong, I'm not as familiar with this part of the laws in America, so would be open to being corrected.
5. Child support payments should go to the support of the child -- not to state agents, not to prop up bureaucracies, and not to serve as punishment for male sexuality.
Totally agree - again, open to being corrected, but I was not aware this was the case in the present state. Administrative fees for ensuring father's live up to their obligations should be paid for by general taxes.
6. Voluntary payments (for example, buying dance lessons for a daughter or buying shoes or school clothing out of pocket) should count toward fulfilling legal child support obligations. Non-custodial parents should be empowered to make financial decisions for the well-being of their children instead of being rendered wage slaves to the custodials.
Why would you ever give non-custodial parents empowerment to make financial decisions for the well-being of their children? If they don't want custody, why would they want to make financial decisions, other than to limit their own expense? How is this good for the child? If anything, don't make the voluntary payments, and ensure that the support payments include things like a reasonable involvement in extra-curricular activities, and school clothes - if you consider school clothes a "voluntary payment" that would be outside the normal inclusions for support payments anyway.
I would have a different opinion on this if the father had joint custody, of course. But you don't get to wash your hands of the raising, but keep your hands in the till.
And finally, if every single father was truly interested in providing meaningful support, the courts would never have had to get involved in the first place. I'm a father, and the courts haven't had to get involved with me supporting my kid once.
One last time: to avoid all this, all you gotta do is keep it in your pants. How about teaching our boys that, instead of how to shirk their responsibilities?
