Every law, if you were to investigate its history through its creation by our lawmakers, is “eminently reasonable” to quote my law school contract law professor. While some laws seem weird and completely against reason, that cannot be said about our laws requiring us to be financially responsible for the welfare, support and maintenance of certain people, like minor children we have as our own, either naturally or by adoption. Natural (or adoptive) parents are responsible for the adequate safety and care of their minor children until a child reaches 18 years of age or graduates high school, whichever occurs last. (In certain circumstances, if a child has certain “special needs” and is truly unable (not unwilling) to care for itself in our society, for example, a parent’s responsibility may legally be extended virtually indefinitely.)
It may therefore be said, if one becomes a parent, one immediately has created and accepted certain legal duties and responsibilities for one’s child. I do not see how anyone could find that an unreasonable proposition. It is true that a parent may choose to provide for a child after the parent’s legal obligation has ended. Regardless of how people on the outside may see that, perhaps as a classic “failure to launch” or “enabling”, which some view as being not at all in the child’s best interest, that parent may choose to house, feed and otherwise support the child as long as the parent wishes, even though there is no legal obligation involved.