Finnish man ordered by court to pay alimony for a child resulting from his wife cheating: this week in the strange death of Europe

[Toni]

Here in my state if I am in a legal marriage and the children end up not being biologically mine, I must still pay child support. There are good reasons for this. Firstly the children get the financial support they need.

Need or deserve? People need lots of things but it doesn't mean that they deserve if from me. If you did not consent or contribute to the creation of the child then why do you owe anything to the child? I can understand the rational behind the Finnish law or any similar law that says that if you have acted in the role of provider for some time then you are obligated to continue that support. However, I also think that if one partner in the relationship goes out and gets kids by any means to which the other partner didn't consent then the non-consenting partner should have the right to sever contract and leave the other partner to deal on their own.

If you believe the child is yours, if you have committed acts with the mother that you know could have led to a child and indeed, believe did lead to the existence of the child in question, if you treated that child as your own, then it's your child, genetics or not.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the child the woman is carrying is not your child or possibly not your child, that is the time to raise the question and to establish paternity or non-paternity.

 

[scombrid]

But my genetics are the least important part of what I hope to pass on. I have lived a life, and I would see at the very least that some other human finds themselves somewhere on a road with the path to whatever enlightenment I may have found already well marked out for them to explore and perhaps completely ignore on their way towards the future. Genetics didn't walk that road and didn't mark the path, that was the product of a lot of work, teaching, and existential crisis. In fact, the most important thesis I wish to pass onto others is the capability of anyone to walk such a path given time and effort and a bare minimum of ability. That's more difficult to establish, especially if my children are "just like me".

Does that hold if the offspring are produced in a breach of trust that causes you to sever the relationship during the pregnancy or shortly after birth? Would you be able to or want to have that relationship with the child if you have the relationship ended by a breach of trust by the mother?

 

[Jayjay]

On closer reading of related law websites, it seems that the two-year limit is not so absolute, if the man is not aware that he might not be the biological father. So in this case it's not so much about the two-year time limit, as it is about the man taking over half a year to file for the annulment. I think this is reasonable; if a man knows he is not the bio-daddy, but chooses to raise the child anyway, he can't just change his mind later or hold that knowledge as a threat against the mother, for example. Also, if he at any point during the pregnancy or after the child is born confesses to being the father in writing (even if he were mistaken), he gives up his right to file for annulment.

No takesies-backsies for dads in Finland!

 

[laughing dog]

On closer reading of related law websites, it seems that the two-year limit is not so absolute, if the man is not aware that he might not be the biological father. So in this case it's not so much about the two-year time limit, as it is about the man taking over half a year to file for the annulment. I think this is reasonable; if a man knows he is not the bio-daddy, but chooses to raise the child anyway, he can't just change his mind later or hold that knowledge as a threat against the mother, for example. Also, if he at any point during the pregnancy or after the child is born confesses to being the father in writing (even if he were mistaken), he gives up his right to file for annulment.

No takesies-backsies for dads in Finland!

You appear to know about Finnish law. Does Finland have a good income maintenance program for households in need? For example, if this particular woman with a child received no private child support, what kind of income maintenance would she (or the child) receive or be eligible for?

 

[ruby sparks]

Here in my state if I am in a legal marriage and the children end up not being biologically mine, I must still pay child support. There are good reasons for this. Firstly the children get the financial support they need.

Need or deserve? People need lots of things but it doesn't mean that they deserve if from me. If you did not consent or contribute to the creation of the child then why do you owe anything to the child? I can understand the rational behind the Finnish law or any similar law that says that if you have acted in the role of provider for some time then you are obligated to continue that support. However, I also think that if one partner in the relationship goes out and gets kids by any means to which the other partner didn't consent then the non-consenting partner should have the right to sever contract and leave the other partner to deal on their own.

If you believe the child is yours, if you have committed acts with the mother that you know could have led to a child and indeed, believe did lead to the existence of the child in question, if you treated that child as your own, then it's your child, genetics or not.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the child the woman is carrying is not your child or possibly not your child, that is the time to raise the question and to establish paternity or non-paternity.

What a load of nonsense. You really are metaphor in reverse.

She cheated on him, had a child that was not his. He didn't initially know (child was only 2). He later missed a deadline by 2 months, that's all. He even (reportedly) had to pay her legal fees after she took him to court to get his money for a child she knew was not his. What do you actually need to hear before you are willing to just say it looks like a woman did bad? Imo, that's what we all should be saying, based on what we know.

The 'death of western civilisation' thing is another matter, and arguably absurd. But this case on its own? Unless there are details we don't yet know, it's surely a no-brainer and there should be none of your mealy-mouthed, female-biased, anti-men apologetics imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

More generally, I myself am hardly familiar at all with Finnish politics, but I do remember reading earlier this year on the BBC News online that the Finnish government put (or were about to put) fathers on a fully equal footing with mothers as regards paid parental leave allowances. So, as I understand it, it took what I believe was a women-led, centre-left coalition government to do that. Unless I'm wrong about that (and Jayjay may correct me), I'm not particularly convinced about the supposed 'death' in question.

What would this thing that you're not sure about but you thought you'd bring it up anyway, have to do with the OP?

To suggest that you are overstating the 'death of Europe' thing, that's in your OP title, obviously, and therefore spot on topic. You seriously couldn't get that I was saying that, especially from my last (bolded) sentence?

And I have checked it and what I reported was correct.

 

[laughing dog]

If you believe the child is yours, if you have committed acts with the mother that you know could have led to a child and indeed, believe did lead to the existence of the child in question, if you treated that child as your own, then it's your child, genetics or not.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the child the woman is carrying is not your child or possibly not your child, that is the time to raise the question and to establish paternity or non-paternity.

What a load of nonsense. You really are metaphor in reverse.

She cheated on him, had a child that was not his. He didn't initially know. He later missed a deadline by 2 months, that's all. He even (reportedly) had to pay her legal fees after she took him to court to get his money for a child she knew was not his. What do you actually need to hear before you are willing to just say it looks like the woman did bad? That's what we all should be saying, based on what we know.

The issue of the morality of the woman's actions is logically separate from the issue of the Finnish law and its application.

A child is much more than a financial liability. The fact that so many people (men and women) do not see it otherwise is a tragedy. There is nothing anti-man or pro-woman about thinking that if you treat a child as your own for a long enough time period, then the child is yours. Certainly the child believes you are a parent.

The child in question will need financial support. Finnish law is clear on this matter - this man is considered the father if he does not successfully annul paternity within a specific period of time. Which means if he fails to pay mandated child support, then he ought to pay the enforcement costs of that order.

IMO, the only issue is whether Finnish law achieves what the Finnish people want in a fair and efficient fashion.

If one views a child only as a financial liability, then one would conclude that this man is getting shafted and that the Finnish law is unfair. However, that conclusion is not so clear when one considers the welfare of the child and that children are not simply financial liabilities which has nothing to do with whether one is "anti-man" or "female-biased". I expect such fuckwitted attacks from some posters, but not someone who claims to be open-minded.

 

[Jayjay]

On closer reading of related law websites, it seems that the two-year limit is not so absolute, if the man is not aware that he might not be the biological father. So in this case it's not so much about the two-year time limit, as it is about the man taking over half a year to file for the annulment. I think this is reasonable; if a man knows he is not the bio-daddy, but chooses to raise the child anyway, he can't just change his mind later or hold that knowledge as a threat against the mother, for example. Also, if he at any point during the pregnancy or after the child is born confesses to being the father in writing (even if he were mistaken), he gives up his right to file for annulment.

No takesies-backsies for dads in Finland!

You appear to know about Finnish law. Does Finland have a good income maintenance program for households in need? For example, if this particular woman with a child received no private child support, what kind of income maintenance would she (or the child) receive or be eligible for?

Not counting possible benefits she might receive anyway, she would be eligible to universal child benefits of ~100 euros per month (~160 if she's a single parent) and 160 euros per month of public child support. So about 320 euros = $380 total.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

3. if you're a governing state body you have two options when it comes to single women with a dependent: A. tell them and their children to get fucked and go live in poverty and starve, B. provide them with support to allow them to be self sustainable.
if you choose A well then it doesn't matter, if you choose B then you have two options: robust social programs funded by tax money, or require the financial support from a husband/father that has resources to spare.

The problem is that this assumes he has spare resources and that he is somehow responsible for the situation.

I have no problem with child support (although I do feel there should be a maximum, it shouldn't scale infinitely with income) when it's the actual father and didn't involve misdeeds on her part. I have a big problem with child support when he's not the father. In the old days there was no way to know, we simply had to accept there would be some errors. Now, however, we do know, there's no reason for errors. A child support award should automatically require a positive paternity test or paperwork that shows he's the father anyway. There's no reason to single him out for additional victimization.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Alimony should not 'be a thing' in any Western country.

Disagree--alimony has it's place. When one partner (usually the woman) gives up her career to be a partner or stay-at-home mom there should be financial compensation if the arrangement ends. However, it should be capped based on her previous potential. She should not get more than it takes to put her back to where she would have been had she not given up her career. (Thus if she was earning $80k and now can only earn $40k she should get no more than $40k/year even if he's making a billion. Obviously, adjusted for inflation.)

 

[Jayjay]

If you believe the child is yours, if you have committed acts with the mother that you know could have led to a child and indeed, believe did lead to the existence of the child in question, if you treated that child as your own, then it's your child, genetics or not.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the child the woman is carrying is not your child or possibly not your child, that is the time to raise the question and to establish paternity or non-paternity.

What a load of nonsense. You really are metaphor in reverse.

She cheated on him, had a child that was not his. He didn't initially know (child was only 2). He later missed a deadline by 2 months, that's all. He even (reportedly) had to pay her legal fees after she took him to court to get his money for a child she knew was not his. What do you actually need to hear before you are willing to just say it looks like a woman did bad? Imo, that's what we all should be saying, based on what we know.

The absurd 'death of western civilisation' thing is another matter, and arguably absurd. But this case on its own? Unless there are details we don't yet know, it's surely a no-brainer and there should be none of your mealy-mouthed, female-biased, anti-men apologetics imo.

Sure the "woman did bad". But the man did have a window of opportunity to fix it. He failed to do so. So while it does seem unfair, the law isn't that bad.

As background, here is a more detailed time table of events:

January 2016: The man finds out about the wife's infidelity and that he is not the father. Apparently the wife still had a relationship with the biological father, and had done so for the past three years. It's not clear how long after the incident this continued though.

March 2016: The man moves out of the house.

April 2016: The wife files for divorce.

May 2016: The man gets the DNA test results.

June 2016: The child turns 2 years old.

August 2016: The man files for annulment.

It seems that the man was distraught over the news (he started seeing a therapist who later would testify him having PTSD symptoms), and it really came to him as a surprise. At the time, according to his own words, he was still hoping to have some relationship with the child, which probably contributed to his tardiness. The woman on the other hand was later convicted in an unrelated case of embezzling her employer, so my gut feeling is that the man here is being sincere and the woman is in it for the money. From legal standpoint though, being a crybaby isn't a reason to miss deadlines, and there is no proof that she deliberately defrauded the man. Infidelity is not a crime.

 

[Metaphor]

I have no idea why you think a bureaucratic stumbling block would be fatal to Europe. The Europeans practically invented the stupid things.

Why is it that these alleged "bureaucratic stumbling blocks" always favor the woman and screw over the man?
You never hear of an European (or American) court condemning a woman to pay through the nose for her cheating ex-husbands love children, do you? But you always hear about these radfem courts deliberately screwing over the men.

It’s favoring the child, who does not deserve to lose the only father they know. The man has been a father to the child for two years. That’s not something you can just erase because you get angry.

The law cannot compel him to be a father. The law can only forcibly take money from him.

 

[Jarhyn]

But my genetics are the least important part of what I hope to pass on. I have lived a life, and I would see at the very least that some other human finds themselves somewhere on a road with the path to whatever enlightenment I may have found already well marked out for them to explore and perhaps completely ignore on their way towards the future. Genetics didn't walk that road and didn't mark the path, that was the product of a lot of work, teaching, and existential crisis. In fact, the most important thesis I wish to pass onto others is the capability of anyone to walk such a path given time and effort and a bare minimum of ability. That's more difficult to establish, especially if my children are "just like me".

Does that hold if the offspring are produced in a breach of trust that causes you to sever the relationship during the pregnancy or shortly after birth? Would you be able to or want to have that relationship with the child if you have the relationship ended by a breach of trust by the mother?

In the unlikely event that my husband ends up pregnant, and pregnant by someone else, and pregnant by someone else for whom I was not already aware may have contributed sperm, I would have to have a long and difficult conversation with my husband as to why that happened in the first place. We usually talk about these sorts of things before, rather than after the fact. It would have to be a very deep breach of trust.

Either way, if we stopped being in a relationship I would not willingly end my relationship with the child, nor would I balk at providing for them. They don't deserve to be deprived of parents just because one of those parents did something shitty to the other.

 

[Metaphor]

If one views a child only as a financial liability, then one would conclude that this man is getting shafted and that the Finnish law is unfair. However, that conclusion is not so clear when one considers the welfare of the child and that children are not simply financial liabilities which has nothing to do with whether one is "anti-man" or "female-biased". I expect such fuckwitted attacks from some posters, but not someone who claims to be open-minded.

The conclusion seems quite clear to me. The cuckolded husband does not want to be a father to this child. It is not genetically his and the events leading up to the dissolution of the union with the mother appear to have been traumatic to him. The law cannot compel him to be a father; he'd already have to want to do that.

So, the law can only compel him to pay for a child who is not his own, while the child's actual father escapes all liability.

 

[Metaphor]

On closer reading of related law websites, it seems that the two-year limit is not so absolute, if the man is not aware that he might not be the biological father. So in this case it's not so much about the two-year time limit, as it is about the man taking over half a year to file for the annulment. I think this is reasonable; if a man knows he is not the bio-daddy, but chooses to raise the child anyway, he can't just change his mind later or hold that knowledge as a threat against the mother, for example. Also, if he at any point during the pregnancy or after the child is born confesses to being the father in writing (even if he were mistaken), he gives up his right to file for annulment.

No takesies-backsies for dads in Finland!

It's good to know that false confessions are treated as true ones in Finland.

 

[Metaphor]

To suggest that you are overstating the 'death of Europe' thing, that's in your OP title, obviously, and therefore spot on topic. You seriously couldn't get that I was saying that, especially from my last (bolded) sentence?

No. I couldn't get what your comments about paid parental leave have to do with anything.

It's curious to me how triggering my subtitle is to people.

 

[Metaphor]

This. /\
My kids tell my jokes. Throw things at me for my puns. Come to md with questions. Cook, launder, clean the way we taught them. I kniw the names of most of their stuffed animals. If there's a car accident tomorrow that leads to blood donation and discovery that they're not related to me, they're certainly no less my kids.

Going to be an interesting conversation on the drive home, but still it'll be within the family.

That's wonderful.

But if a father doesn't feel like you, and he discovers that his kids are not genetically his own, and this cuts him psychologically in a way that he cannot heal, what then? The law cannot compel him to feel a certain way. The law cannot compel him to be a father. The only thing the law can do is compel money from him, and possibly make him resentful in addition to damaged and betrayed.

 

[Metaphor]

But my genetics are the least important part of what I hope to pass on. I have lived a life, and I would see at the very least that some other human finds themselves somewhere on a road with the path to whatever enlightenment I may have found already well marked out for them to explore and perhaps completely ignore on their way towards the future. Genetics didn't walk that road and didn't mark the path, that was the product of a lot of work, teaching, and existential crisis. In fact, the most important thesis I wish to pass onto others is the capability of anyone to walk such a path given time and effort and a bare minimum of ability. That's more difficult to establish, especially if my children are "just like me".

Does that hold if the offspring are produced in a breach of trust that causes you to sever the relationship during the pregnancy or shortly after birth? Would you be able to or want to have that relationship with the child if you have the relationship ended by a breach of trust by the mother?

In the unlikely event that my husband ends up pregnant, and pregnant by someone else, and pregnant by someone else for whom I was not already aware may have contributed sperm, I would have to have a long and difficult conversation with my husband as to why that happened in the first place. We usually talk about these sorts of things before, rather than after the fact. It would have to be a very deep breach of trust.

Either way, if we stopped being in a relationship I would not willingly end my relationship with the child, nor would I balk at providing for them. They don't deserve to be deprived of parents just because one of those parents did something shitty to the other.

Jarhyn thinks the law should be modelled on his imagined feelings and voluntary future states. That is, others should be compelled to do what Jarhyn supposes he will do voluntarily.

 

[Jayjay]

On closer reading of related law websites, it seems that the two-year limit is not so absolute, if the man is not aware that he might not be the biological father. So in this case it's not so much about the two-year time limit, as it is about the man taking over half a year to file for the annulment. I think this is reasonable; if a man knows he is not the bio-daddy, but chooses to raise the child anyway, he can't just change his mind later or hold that knowledge as a threat against the mother, for example. Also, if he at any point during the pregnancy or after the child is born confesses to being the father in writing (even if he were mistaken), he gives up his right to file for annulment.

No takesies-backsies for dads in Finland!

It's good to know that false confessions are treated as true ones in Finland.

It's not a false confession. It's acceptance of the responsibilities and rights of fatherhood regardless of genetics.

 

[Metaphor]

This. /\
My kids tell my jokes. Throw things at me for my puns. Come to md with questions. Cook, launder, clean the way we taught them. I kniw the names of most of their stuffed animals. If there's a car accident tomorrow that leads to blood donation and discovery that they're not related to me, they're certainly no less my kids.

Going to be an interesting conversation on the drive home, but still it'll be within the family.

^^this^^ This is parenthood.

It is.

And it cannot be compelled. Not just "the Finnish law is inefficient at compelling it".

It cannot be compelled. In fact, if money is forcibly taken from you by the State for a child that is not yours and you do not want to parent, the law can only further degrade that person's feelings towards the child.