These are the most common questions and criticisms raised about the proposal — each followed by a grounded, practical response that highlights its fairness, simplicity, and its child-centred, consent-based foundations.
No — this is not about opting out. It’s about requiring clear consent before someone is legally or financially responsible.
The idea of a “financial abortion” or opt-out suggests someone can walk away after a child is conceived. That’s not what this model proposes.
Instead, this system starts with a simple, early question:
“Do you agree to be a parent?”
Only if someone ticks “Yes” legal responsibility begins. If they don’t, they aren’t bound — and they waive their rights too.
This isn’t a loophole. It’s a consent-based system that encourages early decision-making, shared agreements, and personal accountability. If you say yes, you’re fully responsible. If you don’t, you’re not a parent in law.
It’s about consent — not coercion. Responsibility should start with choice, not assumption.
It’s true that consenting to sex carries natural risks, including the possibility of pregnancy.
But legal and lifelong responsibility for a child should not be based on biology alone — it should be based on mutual agreement to become a parent.
In the UK, women are legally recognised as having the right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
They can choose:
• To end the pregnancy (via abortion)
• To raise the child
• Or to place the child for adoption
This decision does not require the consent of the male biological contributor. The law recognises a woman’s right to choose whether to become a parent.
By contrast, once a child is born, men currently have no legal mechanism to decline parenthood — even if:
• They were unaware of the pregnancy
• They did not agree to become a parent
• Or the pregnancy resulted from deception or non-disclosure
This creates a clear imbalance. While women have a legal route to opt out of parenthood, men do not — even in cases of non-consensual or unintentional conception.
This proposal does not argue against reproductive choice for women. Instead, it calls for equal reproductive autonomy — recognising that just as no one should be forced to carry a pregnancy, no one should be legally or financially bound to parenthood without voluntary consent.
Equality in responsibility begins with equality in consent.
Not in UK law. Sperm donors, for example, have no legal duty unless they consent to parent. This model applies that same principle to everyone.
Parenthood should come from agreement, not biology alone.
The CMS may aim to protect children, but in practice it often causes harm — by creating adversarial relationships, rewarding contact denial, and enforcing debt on people who never agreed to parenthood.
This proposal ensures that support is based on mutual consent and personal responsibility — not state coercion. That leads to more co-operation, more contact, and more stable outcomes for children.
Freedom isn’t a luxury. It’s the foundation for genuine, lasting responsibility.
No. This proposal doesn’t let people escape responsibility — it stops the government from forcing responsibility on people who never consented to become parents in the first place.
Anyone who ticks “yes” or signs a PRA is fully liable. But someone tricked, deceived, or never informed should not be financially punished for 18-20 years.
Responsibility must begin with choice.
Actually, this model reduces court involvement using:
• Free contract templates
• Mandatory mediation before any case goes to court
• Optional private arbitration
• Fast-track digital enforcement for payments
The courts are used only when everything else fails — keeping the system light, fair, and efficient.
Choosing not to opt in is a serious and intentional decision — but it doesn’t have to be final. If both parties later agree, the contributor can still opt in and take on shared responsibility.
But consent must remain mutual. Children deserve stability — not sudden reappearances from someone who previously declined involvement.
No agreement signed under coercion, fraud, or abuse is valid. This proposal includes clear safeguards:
• PRAs can be voided by court if signed under pressure
• Domestic violence survivors cannot be forced to maintain contact or co-parent
• Vulnerable parties are protected under civil and family law, as they are today