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

[Loren Pechtel]

Several people in this thread have made the proposition that legal parenthood should be *automatically* anulled when it turns out the man who accepted fatherhood on the premise that is the biological father is not in fact the biological father. Have you really thought this through? Does it work both ways?

I mean, I have two kids aged 10 and 2, and I love those and believe I've earned myself a place in their life. If either of them turned out not to be biologically mine, I may be angry at their mother for lying to me but I'd certainly want to continue to play a role in their life. Under your proposal, I'd have no basis to claim even as much as visitation rights, right? Is that what you want?

That does not describe my position--I think visitation should follow from having been in the parental role for a sufficient period of time (even in a case where from the start everyone knows he's not the father) and I consider it a completely separate issue from child support.

Akso: Haven't you said elsewhere that child support should be tied to visitation rights/being open to shared custody, that unless there's genuine legitimate concern about the child's wellbeing because of the father's known violent behaviour, a mother should be unable to sue for shild support unless she fully cooperates with respect to visitation? Is this supposed to be a one-way street?

I don't see the positions as contradictory.

I'm saying non-parents who have been in the parental role should be allowed visitation--and apparently Australia agrees with me on this.

That's separate from saying that non-cooperation with visitation should be grounds to withhold child support. The current system is incredibly one-sided, the parent with primary custody can do basically anything they want with visitation and the courts won't do more than wag their finger, but they are draconian about child support even when there was no way for the person to pay. (Consider Desert Storm--a bunch of people got called up to the gulf, their jobs were protected but if they didn't manage to get the child support amount adjusted to their new income they could be royally screwed with no recourse. Even when the other parent deliberately delayed the court hearing to past the deployment date.)

 

[laughing dog]

Thanks for confirming that you view the child as purely a financial liability.

Thank you for ignoring the fact that I have clearly stated that I think visitation should be a completely separate issue and based on the parental role--removing the financial aspect should not change this.

It is fascinating to see you think "visitation" is the be all and end all of child's non-financial welfare.

 

[Toni]

Akso: Haven't you said elsewhere that child support should be tied to visitation rights/being open to shared custody, that unless there's genuine legitimate concern about the child's wellbeing because of the father's known violent behaviour, a mother should be unable to sue for shild support unless she fully cooperates with respect to visitation? Is this supposed to be a one-way street?

I don't see the positions as contradictory.

I'm saying non-parents who have been in the parental role should be allowed visitation--and apparently Australia agrees with me on this.

That's separate from saying that non-cooperation with visitation should be grounds to withhold child support. The current system is incredibly one-sided, the parent with primary custody can do basically anything they want with visitation and the courts won't do more than wag their finger, but they are draconian about child support even when there was no way for the person to pay. (Consider Desert Storm--a bunch of people got called up to the gulf, their jobs were protected but if they didn't manage to get the child support amount adjusted to their new income they could be royally screwed with no recourse. Even when the other parent deliberately delayed the court hearing to past the deployment date.)

I agree that some child support laws can be draconian. I believe that whenever it is not contrary to the best interests of the child or unsafe for custodial parent or child, every effort to maintain contact,visitation, shared decision making, etc. should be the goal. A non-custodial parent who is unable to make support payments should not be kept from spending time with the child, unless there is reason to believe that the child’s health, safety and well-being would be at risk in the company of the noncustodial parent. No child should have to endure abuse or harsh treatment, hunger, fear for safety at the hands of either parent or their intimate partners, family or associates. A drug dealer should not be able to have physical custody for even an hour, for example. However, being unsafe or unsuitable to be around your child should not be a reason for you to not pay child support.

Sadly, it is not uncommon for the intimate partners of parents of young or dependent children to be hostile to that child, even dangerously so. No child should have to endure that. And no child’s financial support should be contingent upon the child being exposed to such unacceptable behavior on the part of the parent, the parent’s associates or family members.

 

[Metaphor]

If it's not automatic, a decision based on the case has to be reached by someone. Who do you suggest that someone should be if not the courts?

The courts enforcing rules set out in legislation.

Exactly, which is a contradiction to what you said before, and no different from the situation currently holding in Finland or elsewhere, or is it?

It is not a contradiction to what I said before, and of course it is different to the current situation in Finland because I am proposing a different set of rules.

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly "dodge" means something different in Australia. I bolded and italicized my clear response to your question. Why do you ask questions when you are either incapable of understanding them or cannot be bothered to read them?

You responded, laughing dog. You did not answer the question. I asked you what you think should happen to the bio father, and your response was to say 'the Finns should decide'.

So, I noted the dodge. I'll ask a slightly different question.

What do you think should happen to the bio father, if a similar case were happening in your state in your country?

Obviously, why bother to know what you are raving about?

I am not raving (or babbling, or whatever other insult you use when you decide to be obtuse). I am not interested in what the Finnish law says, I was interested in what you thought should happen. So, I'll ask again:

What do you think should happen to the bio father, if a similar case were happening in your state in your country?

 

[Jokodo]

Exactly, which is a contradiction to what you said before, and no different from the situation currently holding in Finland or elsewhere, or is it?

It is not a contradiction to what I said before, and of course it is different to the current situation in Finland because I am proposing a different set of rules.

And when asked what those rules are and what makes you confident that those produce overall better outcomes than the ones currently in place, or when you're given examples of cases that might go wrong with what little you have presented, you dodge.

 

[Metaphor]

Exactly, which is a contradiction to what you said before, and no different from the situation currently holding in Finland or elsewhere, or is it?

It is not a contradiction to what I said before, and of course it is different to the current situation in Finland because I am proposing a different set of rules.

And when asked what those rules are and what makes you confident that those produce overall better outcomes than the ones currently in place, or when you're given examples of cases that might go wrong with what little you have presented, you dodge.

I gave you very clear examples of what rules make sense to me in post #221 and in other posts. I answered your specific questions across multiple posts. It was beyond the scope of the thread to lay out a specific framework for a family law act, but I nevertheless spoke of elements that would be present in my own.

It is flat out wrong of you to say I dodged your questions. I answered them directly like in posts #239, #241, #243, including questions that you appear to believe, for some reason, arise as a consequence of my framework (all these 'automatic nullification' challenges).

My answer to why my rules would produce better outcomes, is because my rules are based on consent and fairness, and I find these to be important foundations for law. The current rules are not based on consent or fairness, but on the State paying out the least amount of welfare possible, and on a very conservative tradition that husbands are to be held responsible for the behaviour of their wives.

Now, you might not believe consent and fairness, as opposed to welfare stinginess and patriarchal marriage values, are better foundations on which to build rules around family law, but I do.

Your post here is very dishonest and I believe shows you are not interested in having a good faith discussion. I'm sorry that all my patient addressing of your posts and questions went to waste.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

Hmmmm. I'm in a relationship and my spouse is cheating to the point that the kids I think and raise as mine are fathered by someone else. I feel I have a responsibility for those kids. For starters they are kids, not guilty of doing anything wrong. Secondly, I've been duped, I was stupid enough to be duped, and in a way if you're stupid enough to be duped and you have a conscience then you ought to bear responsibility.

So I think the law works by putting the welfare of the kids first, and not the welfare of my ego.

 

[laughing dog]

You responded, laughing dog. You did not answer the question. I asked you what you think should happen to the bio father, and your response was to say 'the Finns should decide'.

First, you did not ask me what I thought should happen to the bio father. You asked why I was letting the biological father off the hook. Second, I did answer your question - I think the Finns should decide. Clearly they have tacitly decided that a system of support by the legal parents is the best solution. They have decided for whatever reasons that a reasonable cutoff for the annulment of paternity is 2 years (with some exceptions). I think that if there is not going to be a system of adequate state support (which, according to my interpretation of Jayjay's very informative posts that you seem ignorant of, does not currently exist in Finland), then a reasonable cutoff date makes sense. Since I do not have a god complex, I think the Finns are in a better position than me or you to set up a system.

IMO, there is a lot more thought involved with that position than your kneejerk "Waaah, some man got screwed by a woman" upchuck.

So, I noted the dodge.

That is an admission of obtuseness.

I'll ask a slightly different question.

What do you think should happen to the bio father, if a similar case were happening in your state in your country?

Are you asking what should happen according to the laws of my state or what should happen in my utopian view of the world? I don't the answer to the former. In the latter, in my utopian view, this would not happen (because it is a utopia). But, I think it is reasonable to require that 1) the biological father in this instance to be named the legal father, and 2) that the legal father pay child support. Also, from what I can tell from the partial information in this case, neither the ex-husband nor the ex-wife should be allowed near the child.

I am not raving (or babbling..

Given your MO of persistent mischaracterization of responses, and that you are calling people names, flinging out accusations and straw men, you are raving.

 

[Toni]

First, you did not ask me what I thought should happen to the bio father. You asked why I was letting the biological father off the hook. Second, I did answer your question - I think the Finns should decide. Clearly they have tacitly decided that a system of support by the legal parents is the best solution. They have decided for whatever reasons that a reasonable cutoff for the annulment of paternity is 2 years (with some exceptions). I think that if there is not going to be a system of adequate state support (which, according to my interpretation of Jayjay's very informative posts that you seem ignorant of, does not currently exist in Finland), then a reasonable cutoff date makes sense. Since I do not have a god complex, I think the Finns are in a better position than me or you to set up a system.

IMO, there is a lot more thought involved with that position than your kneejerk "Waaah, some man got screwed by a woman" upchuck.


That is an admission of obtuseness.

I'll ask a slightly different question.

What do you think should happen to the bio father, if a similar case were happening in your state in your country?

Are you asking what should happen according to the laws of my state or what should happen in my utopian view of the world? I don't the answer to the former. In the latter, in my utopian view, this would not happen (because it is a utopia). But, I think it is reasonable to require that 1) the biological father in this instance to be named the legal father, and 2) that the legal father pay child support. Also, from what I can tell from the partial information in this case, neither the ex-husband nor the ex-wife should be allowed near the child.

I am not raving (or babbling..

Given your MO of persistent mischaracterization of responses, and that you are calling people names, flinging out accusations and straw men, you are raving.

Here’s my thought, lad: Not every post merits the time to respond. I find this particularly true when posts device into criticism for not addressing every single point or quibbling about “style” versus substance.

 

[Metaphor]

First, you did not ask me what I thought should happen to the bio father. You asked why I was letting the biological father off the hook. Second, I did answer your question - I think the Finns should decide. Clearly they have tacitly decided that a system of support by the legal parents is the best solution. They have decided for whatever reasons that a reasonable cutoff for the annulment of paternity is 2 years (with some exceptions). I think that if there is not going to be a system of adequate state support (which, according to my interpretation of Jayjay's very informative posts that you seem ignorant of, does not currently exist in Finland),

I am not ignorant of them and you are mistaken about what they imply. Child benefits are in addition to any payments you qualify for without children. An unemployed single mother would not have to survive on 380 euro a month. At the very, very least, they would also qualify for unemployment at around 724 euro a month.

then a reasonable cutoff date makes sense. Since I do not have a god complex, I think the Finns are in a better position than me or you to set up a system.

One does not need to think one is God to critique government policy and legislation.

IMO, there is a lot more thought involved with that position than your kneejerk "Waaah, some man got screwed by a woman" upchuck.

If that's how you've characterised my position and behaviour after 27 pages, then you are even more prejudiced than I thought.

Are you asking what should happen according to the laws of my state or what should happen in my utopian view of the world?

I am not asking for the current rules in your jurisdiction. I asked you to imagine what you think would be reasonable to have in your jurisdiction, and I mentioned that it be your jurisdiction so you couldn't handwave an answer like "whatever the people living in that jurisdiction think should decide".

But, I think it is reasonable to require that 1) the biological father in this instance to be named the legal father, and 2) that the legal father pay child support. Also, from what I can tell from the partial information in this case, neither the ex-husband nor the ex-wife should be allowed near the child.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[Metaphor]

Hmmmm. I'm in a relationship and my spouse is cheating to the point that the kids I think and raise as mine are fathered by someone else. I feel I have a responsibility for those kids. For starters they are kids, not guilty of doing anything wrong.

Nobody said they did.

Secondly, I've been duped, I was stupid enough to be duped, and in a way if you're stupid enough to be duped and you have a conscience then you ought to bear responsibility.

So I think the law works by putting the welfare of the kids first, and not the welfare of my ego.

So, you agree that the victim should be blamed because of his own gullibility and should remain on the hook. Does this extend to other victims of fraud?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, you agree that the victim should be blamed because of his own gullibility and should remain on the hook.

Blamed? That's unimportant. Responsibility for the welfare of the kids is the issue.

Does this extend to other victims of fraud?

Blame is unimportant. The welfare of the children is important. Not all fraud is the same.

 

[Metaphor]

Blamed? That's unimportant. Responsibility for the welfare of the kids is the issue.

Why is the cuckolded husband, and not the bio father and mother, responsible for the welfare of the kids?

 

[fromderinside]

Follow the incubator.

 

[Jayjay]

I am not ignorant of them and you are mistaken about what they imply. Child benefits are in addition to any payments you qualify for without children. An unemployed single mother would not have to survive on 380 euro a month. At the very, very least, they would also qualify for unemployment at around 724 euro a month.

That was 380 dollars. But numbers aside, you are absolutely correct in your interpretation. The child benefit figures I cited were what the child would be eligible for in benefits, regardless of other benefits or income the parent(s) may have. However, I also don't think laughing dog was saying anything different. The benefits are slightly less than the actual average costs of a child (such as food, clothes, daycare, transportation, hobbies, bigger house, etc.), hence a single mother would be financially disadvantaged compared to a childless single woman living alone. Child support is meant to bridge that gap.

 

[Metaphor]

I am not ignorant of them and you are mistaken about what they imply. Child benefits are in addition to any payments you qualify for without children. An unemployed single mother would not have to survive on 380 euro a month. At the very, very least, they would also qualify for unemployment at around 724 euro a month.

That was 380 dollars. But numbers aside, you are absolutely correct in your interpretation. The child benefit figures I cited were what the child would be eligible for in benefits, regardless of other benefits or income the parent(s) may have. However, I also don't think laughing dog was saying anything different. The benefits are slightly less than the actual average costs of a child (such as food, clothes, daycare, transportation, hobbies, bigger house, etc.), hence a single mother would be financially disadvantaged compared to a childless single woman living alone. Child support is meant to bridge that gap.

Laughing dog said the welfare system was inadequate. I can hardly believe that Finland's welfare system is inadequate, and if it is, then every welfare system ever created must be inadequate.

I am also not surprised that a single mother would be financially worse off than a childless single woman living alone (though even then I don't think that's necessarily the case). Having children entails costs, why should it not?

Of course, single mothers can get jobs too. Average monthly wages in Finland is 3,605 euro, and even if the mother could earn only one third of that, that would be 1,200 euro a month.

It's also worth noting that I never said the father should not have to provide toward the child's material costs of living. I disagree that the obligation falls on the cuckolded husband, however.

 

[Derec]

Blamed? That's unimportant. Responsibility for the welfare of the kids is the issue.

The responsibility for the child should rest with those responsible for creating it. The biological father and mother. Not the guy who had nothing to do with it.

Blame is unimportant. The welfare of the children is important. Not all fraud is the same.

Of course is the blame important! Otherwise, why not have you pay for the welfare of that child?

 

[Derec]

Secondly, I've been duped, I was stupid enough to be duped,

So blame the victim and financially reward the perpetrator. As long as the victim is male and the perpetrator is female, of course.
That is the basis of all feminist politics!

 

[Derec]

And by golly women have reason to worry about fair treatment at rape trials.

In what way? Even if a woman makes a false and malicious accusation (see for example Crystal Magnum), she is rarely prosecuted.
But a man faces years or even decades in prison if wrongly convicted of a rape he did not commit, which happens all the time.