In practical terms, tho, it doesn't work out that way.
If Mom wants to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption, the state does indeed look for Dad in order to give him the option to _take the child himself_. However, Dad _cannot_ simply refuse his consent to adoption and insist that _Mom_ keep the child. Dad has two choices: (1) take the baby, or (2) agree to adoption. In practical terms, when Dad takes the baby, there is rarely, rarely, rarely a CS order granted against Mom. However, if Mom wants to carry the baby to term and does NOT want to give it up for adoption, Dad has no choice and will likely be subject to a CS order. Do you see the inequity here?
Another inequity in CS orders is the difference in the way "child support" is enforced. Court orders are never entered directing a custodial parent to earn (pay) a certain amount of money, on pain of incarceration. Never. A custodial parent is free to quit her job and go on welfare, without interference from the state. An NCP with a CS order just can't do that. A CP with a high-paying career can always quit and go back to school, quit and take up nature photography, or what-the-heck-ever. That's her choice, and she is permitted to make that choice. Even if it results in her having insufficient funds to feed her child(ren), there is no judge in the world who will put her in jail _just for quitting her job._ For that matter, even if her income falls to the point where the kid is eating sporadically and wearing old and ill-fitting clothes, she won't go to jail absent a finding of _willful_ neglect. The NCP, on the other hand, must remain in the job he had when the order was entered, or take a _better_ job -- he cannot quit his high-paying and high-stress job _even for medical reasons_ such as chest pains. If he does, he will go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
This is flatly unfair.