This may be the last generation when a significant proportion of children born into (quasi-) marriages in "the Western world" have a paternity that would surprise the (quasi-) husband.
High quality (reliable, unobtrusive) male contraception is a wish of many men. It may be close, perhaps 2010. Different types have been tested on many men worldwide over several years, and the RISUG technology has passed its clinical trials in India and is being taken up in Canada. Surely "child support" will help to drive the market for male contraception in the West? But some people still miss the point and believe that the impact of unwanted pregnancy falls entirely on women!
C4M is a proposal that, soon after a conception, a man should be able to renounce all rights and responsibilities to any resulting child. It is an attempt to match the ability of women, soon after conception, to opt out of the issues of a child by having an abortion (or alternatively to place the child for adoption after birth). C4M has several problems, some obvious, some less so. It will never become law in its entirety in the UK, and probably not anywhere in "the Western world". But the factors which "inspired" the proposal are real, and need other solutions. Many men feel that the dice are becoming loaded against them.
The relationships between fathers and children used to be largely about social parenting because no one knew the genetic relationships (except for some obvious cases such as different skin colours!) Paternity could often be "presumed". DNA testing is disturbing that. The result is a mix of bio-responsibilities with social responsibilities. Adoption is the simple example and is probably uncontroversial. Gamete donation can be defined in law. Countries and states differ in the way they treat the rights and responsibilities both of bio-parents and social parents. The UK's CSA takes a strong line on the results of DNA tests - but the reformed scheme brings Scotland's "presumed paternity" law to the rest of the UK. And mothers can refuse to allow the DNA tests needed to be sure. The problems become more widespread as relationships break and reform more frequently.
Parents tend to lose career and financial opportunities compared with those without children. Parents who stay at home to bring up their children even more so. What, if anything, should be done about this? Is child support part of the answer? In fact, what is the question?
Many NRPs fail to pay their child support. But, equally, many PWCs thwart contact between the child and the NRP. Some NRPs keep going back to court to get contact orders enforced. And go back again. And eventually give up (which is probably the point!) How can the contact-thwarter be thwarted? Can you throw a lone mother into prison? Why not?