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

[ruby sparks]

While I was googling around, I came across another case, where in 2008 a wife took the kids from the husband back to Finland (after the family of Finns had moved to Scotland for just over a year). And the Finnish court made her return them. It was the same court. Helsinki Court of Appeal. The basis was that Scotland had, even in that short time, become the children's 'habitual residence'.

It's the case at the top of this page:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=Ck...hUKEwiGyvXPk-rsAhVGQEEAHUcbA00Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

Details can be downloaded.

I'm just saying that the overall picture may be varied. In that case, the deemed needs of the children came first, and it went against the mother.

 

[Jokodo]

While I was googling around, I came across another case, where in 2008 a wife took the kids from the husband back to Finland (after the family of Finns had moved to Scotland for just over a year). And the Finnish court made her return them. It was the same court. Helsinki Court of Appeal. The basis was that Scotland had, even in that short time, become the children's 'habitual residence'.

It's the case at the top of this page:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=Ck...hUKEwiGyvXPk-rsAhVGQEEAHUcbA00Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

Details can be downloaded.

I'm just saying that the overall picture may be varied. In that case, the deemed needs of the children came first, and it went against the mother.

Good catch.

A very relevant sentence (on page 5): "Since there is no written agreement on the intention of the going to
Scotland, the intention has to be interpreted on the basis of the parties'
behaviour. "

So there is no evidence of an explicit agreement one way or the other, but based on the parties' behaviour, an intent is inferred: The wife's claim that the plan was only ever to go to Scotland on a short vacation (the husband's claim that he never wanted to raise a child that's not genetically his), which just happened to be protracted to half a year (he just took half a year to act) was deemed implausible based on her (his) actions.

It seems that neither the ruling in this case is androcentric, nor the ruling in the OP case gynocentric. Rather, both cases where decided on the basis of inferred intent, based on the parties' behaviour.

 

[ruby sparks]

..., both cases where decided on the basis of inferred intent, based on the parties' behaviour.

That was a big part of it, yes. I think another underlying/overriding basis was this 'interests of the children' principle, at least as regards 'what happens to children' in Family Law cases. My googling strongly suggests that this is part of Finnish Family Law policy.

What seems odd about it to me is that she was not allowed to change her mind (about staying in Scotland)* and I checked the dates and in fact they had only been there 6 months (so were still Finnish by passport/nationality etc). Which 6 months can be compared to the time period in the OP case, even though the cases were in most ways about different issues (and in this case there were no set time limits). Note also that he, the husband/father, had (not unlike the husband in the OP case) not understood the need for a formal notification, he had "not understood that a notice of change of address had to be filed", but this apparent omission on his part was overlooked because of other indicators of an initial intent to stay in Scotland.

*Or to be more precise, she herself could change her mind, but she could not, it was deemed, act for the very young children (an infant and a 2-year old).

So the children had to go back to the place of the father, who had mental health problems it seems (the mother claimed that he had been in psychiatric care and been prescribed long-term mood medication, and it seems this was accepted by the court) but not deemed severe enough to justify him not being able to be a viable parent. I guess then it was up to her whether she returned too. And she probably did (few mothers would walk away from such little children).

So I wonder what happened? They seem to have had little money, so it seems unlikely they could afford to rent 2 apartments. So maybe they remained together as a 'parenting family', at least for the time being.

Now, was it actually in the best interests of the children that they stay in Scotland, far away from extended family (I think the mother had taken the kids back to live with their grandmother, her own mother) and possibly be with two parents who didn't, it seems, want to be with each other and at least one of whom had mental health problems? Hard to say for sure, imo (but at least the children, assuming the mother returned with them, then had two parents in the same place, even if it was only the same country). But my guess is the court merely applies the rules technically (in this case regarding 'habitual residence') and as they are intended to be used, while knowing that the application of rules is not necessarily a solution to all the problems. I think it may have been a close call. One could perhaps question whether (relatively unaware) infants/toddlers could properly habituate to a change of location in just 6 months.

 

[Jokodo]

..., both cases where decided on the basis of inferred intent, based on the parties' behaviour.

That was a big part of it, yes. I think another underlying/overriding basis was this 'interests of the children' principle, at least as regards 'what happens to children' in Family Law cases. My googling strongly suggests that this is part of Finnish Family Law policy.

What seems odd about it to me is that she was not allowed to change her mind (about staying in Scotland)* and I checked the dates and in fact they had only been there 6 months (so were still Finnish by passport/nationality etc). Which 6 months can be compared to the time period in the OP case, even though the cases were in most ways about different issues (and in this case there were no set time limits). Note also that he, the husband/father, had (not unlike the husband in the OP case) not understood the need for a formal notification, he had "not understood that a notice of change of address had to be filed", but this apparent omission on his part was overlooked because of other indicators of an initial intent to stay in Scotland.

*Or to be more precise, she herself could change her mind, but she could not, it was deemed, act for the very young children (an infant and a 2-year old).

So the children had to go back to the place of the father, who had mental health problems it seems (the mother claimed that he had been in psychiatric care and been prescribed long-term mood medication, and it seems this was accepted by the court) but not deemed severe enough to justify him not being able to be a viable parent. I guess then it was up to her whether she returned too. And she probably did (few mothers would walk away from such little children).

So I wonder what happened?

That really is none of our business, is it?

They seem to have had little money, so it seems unlikely they could afford to rent 2 apartments. So maybe they remained together as a 'parenting family', at least for the time being.

Now, was it actually in the best interests of the children that they stay in Scotland, far away from extended family (I think the mother had taken the kids back to live with their grandmother, her own mother) and possibly be with two parents who didn't, it seems, want to be with each other and at least one of whom had mental health problems? Hard to say for sure, imo (but at least the children, assuming the mother returned with them, then had two parents in the same place, even if it was only the same country). But my guess is the court merely applies the rules technically (in this case regarding 'habitual residence') and as they are intended to be used while knowing that the application of rules is not necessarily a solution to all the problems. I think it may have been a close call. One could perhaps question whether (relatively unaware) infants/toddlers could properly habituate to a change of location in just 6 months.

An additional factor here may be that international treaties are involved. If the Finnish court decides for the wife without fireproof justification and the British authorities find otherwise, they might risk a diplomatic incident where the United Kingdom accuses Finnland of aiding in the abduction of children from their (British) territory, so the court might be more inclined to decide by the letter of the law without taking special circumstances of the particular case into account as much as they otherwise would.

 

[ruby sparks]

That really is none of our business, is it?

True. But then, arguably nor are any of the scenarios and cases in the rest of the thread.

But yes I know what you mean. It also may well have been something the court considered none of its business either. Or, speculation about future likelihoods (vis a vis the interests of the children specifically) may have been in the back of the judge's mind. Or not. Probably not. Probably too speculative to influence a legal decision.

An additional factor here may be that international treaties are involved. If the Finnish court decides for the wife without fireproof justification and the British authorities find otherwise, they might risk a diplomatic incident where the United Kingdom accuses Finnland of aiding in the abduction of children from their (British) territory, so the court might be more inclined to decide by the letter of the law without taking special circumstances of the particular case into account as much as they otherwise would.

Could have been an unstated factor, yes.

I think another small (and stated) factor was the deemed "ability of the Scottish authorities to protect a child", if required (or at least there being no reason to think otherwise) which may not necessarily have been deemed the case if the family had moved somewhere else. So that is yet another child-centred factor.

But I think the takeaways from this case as regards comparisons with the OP are that (a) in Finnish Family Law generally, child-centredness seems to be the main priority (as regards what happens to the children), (b) in the general sense of Family Law, it can go in favour of either adult/parent and (c) patriarchy/conservatism/traditionalism may have very little to do with it. I mean we can't rule out that the OP ruling contains remnants of patriarchal/conservative/traditionalist ideas, but it may not necessarily be the case. It could just be that the courts apply child-centred laws according to the rules and technicalities. We can't compare outcomes for male adults/parents and female adults/parents in cases such as the OP, because (I'm thinking) the exact reverse situation can't really come up.

I do remain very sympathetic to the man in the OP however, based only on what we know. And there may be a case for either the law to be amended (slightly longer or more flexible time limit following discovery of the paternity for example) or for its application to be reconsidered in this case, in other words for the particular circumstances in this case to be permitted to allow an exception. For example, in the case about moving to Scotland, the man's omission of formally changing addresses was overlooked (granted, there was no set/legal time limit) in favour of other evidence of intent. I do not think there is much clear evidence of intent (to be a father) in the OP case, as far as we know, even if the man did see the child from time to time after he left. But it may depend on how often he saw him and what role he played when seeing him. I doubt the man actually ever consciously or knowingly intended to be the child's father (in the non-biological sense) after finding out the truth, but we don't know. The big advantage of the 'Finland/Scotland' case is that we can read the full court details, which don't seem to be published yet for the OP case.

 

[fromderinside]

Still trying to push today's sense of social justice into laws generated when women and children were property. Can't happen.

Necessary to rewrite law in the frame of current notions of individual and property. Everything else just wanders off mumbling to itself until the next bad example turns up.

Some nice fictional thinking above though.

 

[TomC]

The current law seems quite consistent to me with conservative ideas that a patriarch is responsible for his wife's behaviour and for any children born in his household.

In a society that patriarchal, the guy could just flog his cheating wife, divorce her, and sell the kid into slavery.
Tom

 

[Jayjay]

Just reviving this thread to inform you that there was a twist in this plot: after nine years, the guy managed to get his paternity overturned. Or actually, it was a court-appointed trustee for the kid who made the appeal. It's unknown whether the non-father can now sue for the already paid child support to be returned, but I think it's not retroactive.

 

[Patooka]

Too fucking late. Europe is already dead by Metaphor's estimate. How are you even able to post this in your post apocalyptic hellscape?