Why Child Support Should Be Eliminated: Letting Natural Relationships Flourish

Child support payments are a cornerstone of modern family law, rooted in the belief that a parent must financially support their child, even if they don’t live together. The narrative is familiar: it’s about fairness, shared responsibility, and ensuring a child’s well-being. But what if this system, designed to protect, actually undermines the natural dynamics of parent-child relationships? What if mandating support strips away opportunities for growth, bonding, and accountability—for both parent and child? I believe child support should be non-existent, not just in joint custody but in all cases. Here’s why.

Parenthood Isn’t a Financial Entitlement

When parents are married, we don’t treat a child as having a legal claim to their parents’ income. Support—whether it’s food on the table, a new pair of shoes, or college savings—is a voluntary act, shaped by love, duty, or circumstance. The state only steps in to terminate parental rights in extreme cases of neglect or abuse, not to mandate payments within the family. Why, then, does divorce flip this on its head, turning a parent’s wealth into a child’s entitlement? Property rights matter: a parent’s earnings are theirs, not their child’s by default. Forcing financial transfers post-divorce overrides this natural boundary, treating income as communal when the household isn’t.

Consider my own story. My father was neglectful, abusive, and absent in every meaningful way. He never paid a dime—not because he was ordered to, but because he chose not to. Did that hurt? Yes. But it was a natural outcome of our broken relationship. Mandating child support wouldn’t have made him a better father; it might’ve just kept him a grudging payor, not a present parent. Instead, his absence taught me discernment and boundary-setting—skills I wouldn’t trade. Life is hard sometimes, and shielding kids from that reality with forced payments doesn’t prepare them for it.

Natural Outcomes Build Resilience and Responsibility

Relationships aren’t meant to be engineered by the state—they’re organic, messy, and real. When a parent isn’t close to their child, they miss out on the joy, the connection, the legacy. The child, in turn, gains something bittersweet: the chance to learn who’s reliable, where to set limits, and how to navigate disappointment. Mandating child support short-circuits this. It props up a façade of involvement—money flows, but the bond doesn’t deepen. A parent who’s distant or less “pleasant” might naturally turn to financial support as a way to connect—buying a bike, funding a hobby—balancing their flaws with generosity. But when it’s an entitlement, that opportunity vanishes. The child sees cash, not care; the parent feels obligation, not initiative.

Take a parent who’s goofed off in life—maybe they’re broke and grumpy. Without child support, they face a choice: step up or fade out. They might realize their shortcomings and compensate—maybe not with money, but with empathy, time, or effort. That’s growth. Forcing payments removes the incentive, letting them coast as a check-writer instead of confronting their failures. The child, meanwhile, adapts to the reality—maybe they bond with the “nicer” parent or learn to stand on their own. These are natural outcomes, not tragedies to be fixed.

Bonding Through Choice, Not Coercion

Financial support can be a powerful bonding tool—when it’s voluntary. A parent who’s not the warmest might still shine by providing for their kid’s needs, turning a weakness into a strength. It’s a trade-off: less charm, more resources. But when child support is mandated, it’s no longer a gift—it’s a tax. The child doesn’t see it as an act of love; the parent doesn’t feel it as a bridge. I’ve seen this play out in reverse: my father could’ve chosen to support me in adulthood, maybe helping with a car or a move, as a way to rebuild. He didn’t, and that was his loss. Forcing him to pay earlier wouldn’t have sparked that connection—it would’ve just bred resentment.

Contrast this with intact families. If a married parent is neglectful but not abusive, the state doesn’t swoop in to extract payments for the kids. The family sorts it out—or doesn’t—and the relationship evolves accordingly. Why should divorce change that? Mandatory support assumes kids need cash more than connection, but it’s the latter that lasts. A parent who opts to give, flaws and all, builds something real—something the state can’t mandate.

Property Rights and Autonomy Matter

Ethically, a parent’s income is their own, earned through their labor. Unless they’re starving their child during their care time, why should it be redistributed? In joint custody—where time and responsibility are equal—this is glaringly obvious: both parents are already duplicating costs (two homes, two sets of clothes). Adding child support punishes one for earning more, not for parenting less. Even in unequal custody, the principle holds: if a child chooses one parent over another, that’s a natural shift—why force the other to pay for a bond they’re not building? Property rights aren’t contingent on parenthood; they’re individual.

Autonomy ties into this. Parents should decide how to support their kids—money, time, love—not have it dictated. Kids, too, deserve agency. If they’re old enough (say, 12 or older), let them pick where to live, free from financial strings. Maybe they choose the “nicer” parent; maybe the other steps up to win them back. That’s their call, not the court’s. Mandates infantilize everyone, assuming neither parent nor child can navigate their own path.

The Risks Are Real—And That’s Okay

Critics will say this leaves kids vulnerable. A poorer parent might not afford extras; an inconsistent one might erode trust; a disengaged one might vanish. True—but these are life’s lessons. Not every parent bonds closely with their child, and papering over that with money doesn’t fix it. A wealthier parent might have an edge, but so what? Some are naturally kinder or funnier—should we mandate those traits too? If a parent can’t or won’t support their kid, they face the natural consequence: a weaker tie. The child learns resilience, not entitlement.

My father never supported me, and I turned out fine—not because the state intervened, but because I adapted. Had he been forced to pay, I’d have gotten cash, not a dad. If he’d chosen to help later, it might’ve opened a door. That chance was worth more than any check.

A Better Way Forward

Eliminate child support entirely. In joint custody, equal time makes it redundant; in sole custody, let relationships dictate contributions. Keep neglect and abuse as the only triggers for state action—mirroring how we treat married families—but otherwise, trust parents and kids to sort it out. Offer mediation for voluntary agreements, letting parents contract support if they choose, but don’t mandate it. Let kids over 12 weigh in on custody, free from financial coercion, so bonds reflect reality, not economics.

This isn’t about abandoning kids—it’s about empowering them and their parents. Natural outcomes aren’t always pretty, but they’re honest. A parent who misses out grows or doesn’t; a child who faces hardship learns or doesn’t. Forcing support might cushion the fall, but it robs them of the climb. Life’s hard sometimes. That’s not a flaw to fix—it’s a truth to embrace.