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

[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.

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

The post says 'even if he were mistaken'.

I don't know the details about what it means to 'confess' to being the father in writing. Is it sending an email saying "my kid turned 1 today!" to family and friends?

Or is it some kind of formal, notarised document, like a will? Under what circumstances would a man need to sign such a document?

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Thank you for the extra detail.

I would now be even more of the opinion that things have been unfair on the man, and I would have more sympathy with him. Why use the word crybaby? Is he, in your opinion, supposed to be more of a ‘man’, or something?

 

[Jayjay]

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

The post says 'even if he were mistaken'.

I don't know the details about what it means to 'confess' to being the father in writing. Is it sending an email saying "my kid turned 1 today!" to family and friends?

Or is it some kind of formal, notarised document, like a will? Under what circumstances would a man need to sign such a document?

There is a standard form. It's for cases where the mother is not married, or if a real father comes forward when the child is already born.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

I don’t believe you. You are not that stupid.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

Thank you for the extra detail.

I would now be even more of the opinion that things have been unfair on the man, and I would have more sympathy with him. Why use the word crybaby? Is he, in your opinion, supposed to be more of a ‘man’, or something?

I'm just pointing out that his mental state was not an excuse and shouldn't be an excuse (unless he was locked away in a mental institution in a catatonic state). You can't excuse filing your taxes late or missing a court date by appealing to being depressed or having PTSD either.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm just pointing out that his mental state was not an excuse and shouldn't be an excuse (unless he was locked away in a mental institution in a catatonic state). You can't excuse filing your taxes late or missing a court date by appealing to being depressed or having PTSD either.

Hm. Crybaby is a very odd choice of word, in all the apparent circumstances, imo. Harsh, I think. As I would see it.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

No shit.

Can I just be honest with you? I routinely find your level of sycophancy and associated double standards painful to read. Surely there is more to you, and more to posting here, than "if someone on 'my side' says it I will find a way to support it and if someone on 'other side' says it I will find a way to disagree with it". Surely.

 

[laughing dog]

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

More bollocks.

Perhaps you can logically explain your seemingly stupid observation.

 

[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?

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.

What would $380 a month sufficiently cover in expenses in Finland?

 

[laughing dog]

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

No shit.

So you agree with me.

Can I just be honest with you? I routinely find your level of sycophancy and associated double standards embarrassing to read.

Really - what double standard(s) do you think you see?

Surely there is more to you, and more to posting here, than 'if my side says it I will support it and if the other side says it I will disagree'. Surely.

Surely there is more to you and posting here than interpreting disagreements as "my side" or "your side".

As for sycophancy, I have no idea what you are talking about - which puts me on par with you.

 

[Derec]

because, as i have explained many times, there are three fundamental ingrained social constructs at play:

Just because you have "explained" it many times does not mean you are not wrong.

1. the desire to have children raised in a stable (financially and otherwise) environment to maximize the odds of them turning out as functioning members of society.

And so a man who had nothing to do with bringing this kid into the world should be condemned to paying for the child he was in no way responsible for bringing into the world as well as for the woman who cheated on him?

Why not have the real father pay child support? Why should not the cheating slut not have to work to cover her share of the child rearing expenses?

2. historically women were literally incapable of providing for themselves and their dependents, due to the structure of civilization.

But that does not apply now, and hadn't for decades, especially in a Nordic country like Finland. So it is not relevant at all.

it's only extremely recently that women being capable of being independent was even a thing, maybe 40 years at most.

Women have held jobs a lot longer than 40 years in Finland. 40 years ago is 1980 for fuck's sake!
But even if this were true, it does not justify the court's decision, as it happened now and not 40 or 80 years ago.

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.

C. Expect them to get a job.
D. The real father should pay child support, not the poor guy who got cheated on and defrauded by the woman.

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.

I think the father should be expected to pay his share (the woman should still work and not sit on her ass just because her vagina squeezed out a child) but the ex-husband is not the father!

The father is the man this cheating piece of shit had an affair with.

if there's one thing i feel that i can reasonably surmise about you and metaphor it's that were alimony and child support not a thingm and instead all financial aid for women and children was derived from government funds supplied by taxes, you would lose your minds even more than you already do over the handful of random stories in the world of men paying alimony or child support that you obsessively search the internet for in order to jizz over these forums to the interest of absolutely nobody.

Just because we disagree with you does not mean we "jizz over these forums". Equally we could be saying that you are jizzing all over the forums with your "women are always victims and a man should always be paying for them" white knighting bullshit!

 

[ruby sparks]

Surely there is more to you and posting here than interpreting disagreements as "my side" or "your side".

But it's pretty much all you ever do. I think I could actually predict what line you are going to take, on anything, or any opinion on anything, based on who you are responding to or about, especially metaphor or toni. It literally does not matter what the point itself is that is being made.

 

[Derec]

which apparently it chooses to supplement with alimony and child support.

I agree with Metaphor. Alimony should not be a thing. Women should be expected to work for their own living just like men are.

so then in the instances where the biological father is either not known by the courts or unable to pay, you support paying extra taxes to provide them with robust social services?

If the woman does not want to name her boy toy she should be expected to provide for his share of child rearing costs. She she should not be entitled to any additional social services nor should she be able to condemn the man she cheated on and defrauded to pay for her and her children's living.
Likewise, if the biological dad is not able to provide as much child support as the woman's ex, the ex should not be forced to pay child support.

well i guess that answers the question above that you support paying taxes to support single mothers.

Single mothers should not be entitled to extra social services just because they are female. These laws must be gender-neutral.
Also, there is a great career for single mothers to support themselves and their children.


Half-joking aside, why is your first, last and only solution to single motherhood to have somebody else (the ex-husband and the taxpayers) pay? I think the actual parents (including the mother) should have the primary responsibility for shouldering child rearing costs. Then the government. And the mother's ex-husband should not have to pay at all!

it's not just me. aside from the local cabal, not one person here gives a single fuck about any of the things you post. or have you just somehow never noticed that everything you people post here is just one shit-show after another of everyone slamming you for everything you say?
but, continue with your cutesy innocent act, i'm sure everyone is buying it.

Just because he gets unjustly attacked by radfems and white knights like you does not mean he is not 100% right here.

 

[Derec]

You posted it under the header "this week in the strange death of Europe". If you don't think it's fatal to Europe, why did you use that phrase in your description of what you were talking about?

Death by a thousand cuts sort of thing.

I also think alimony payments should be gender neutral. If the Finns want to keep alimony as part of the legal system, then they should make sure both men and women can be required to pay it, and are eligible to receive it.

Even if laws are written in a gender neutral way, courts do not apply them in a gender neutral way. There is a lot of bias to awarding a woman alimony when a man making less than his ex would be dismissed and told that he should go find a job. I think women who get divorced should go find a job too.

Alimony should be, if not abolished completely, extremely rare, limited to no more than a year, and applied in a gender neutral way.

 

[laughing dog]

Surely there is more to you and posting here than interpreting disagreements as "my side" or "your side".

But it's pretty much all you ever do.

For a moderator, you seem to have a narrow base of reading. In fact, you look at this thread, there are a number of posts that ask for clarification.

I think I could actually predict what line you are going to take, on anything, or any opinion on anything, based on who you are responding to or about, especially metaphor or toni. It literally does not matter what the point itself is that is being made.

Interestingly, I can say the same thing about you.

 

[Derec]

Generally the man is responsible for the success or failure of a marriage.

Sexist bullshit. Both parties are responsible in general. In particular case of this marriage, it is the wife's fault because she cheated and got knocked up by her boy toy.

He should have known this wife was a tart and taken precautions to prevent such as affairs and births from semen of another man. Since he hadn't shown all due diligence he is also liable (responsible) for alimony and child support when she sued him for divorce.

Typical feminist claptrap not to hold women responsible for any of their actions.

 

[Derec]

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.

There are NO good reasons for it. It is cruel as it further victimizes and punishes the victim of fraud while rewarding the fraudster with money. It basically makes the state party to fraud by state aiding and abetting it.

Firstly the children get the financial support they need.

By that logic, a state would be justified in making Jeff Bezos pay child support to random women ...

Secondly it makes me smarter.

How so?

 

[Derec]

I mean here I am spinning up the finances to adopt a child that shares neither the DNA of myself nor my husband, on top of paying everything it costs to raise said child and you can be damn sure I think if I were to divorce my husband after that, that I should owe him, as the primary earner in the house, some money to care for said child.

I don't see why this should be different.

There is a huge difference between consciously seeking to adopt a child and being the victim of fraud, where you think the child is yours, but it is not because your slut wife cheated on you with some rando.

There is the issue of consent. This guy never consented to raise a child who is not his. Something like that should not be forced upon anybody!

 

[Derec]

If they do that in Finland, they should be aware of the law.

That attitude can be used to justify any law, no matter how unjust.

 

[Derec]

It’s favoring the child,

No, it is favoring the cheating slut who just wants the money from her ex. That's all she wants.

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 court did not say the ex-husband must maintain a relationship with her ex-wife's child, just that he has to pay to support it.

But I am not surprised at all that a feminist like you would support an injustice against men.

Would you welcome a law that states that if a man sires a child with some woman not his wife and the couple get divorced that the ex-wife must pay child support for her ex-husband's love child? Probably not. So why do you support a law that condemns the ex-husband to pay for his ex's children?