# 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

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finlan...-from-has-wife-cheating-with-another-man.html

In short, he is obligated to pay child support for a child that is not his, and he is ordered to pay alimony to the woman who cuckolded him.

THE HELSINKI COURT OF APPEAL has upheld the verdict given by the district court that a man has to pay alimony for a child which is not biologically his, and was the result of his wife cheating on him with another man.
The man’s wife had given birth to the child in 2014 but it was only two years later that he found out that he was not the biological father of the child. This resulted in the couple’s divorce and the man applied for abolishment of paternity, which was not granted.

...

Later the mother of the child had sued the man for alimony and the court had ruled that he is obliged to pay the alimony as well as for the legal costs of the cheating wife who had taken him to court.

#### Arctish

##### Centimillionaire
This week in the on-going life of Europe: arbitrary deadline results in injustice, Progressives demand change

Helsinki Times said:
The man’s wife had given birth to the child in 2014 but it was only two years later that he found out that he was not the biological father of the child. This resulted in the couple’s divorce and the man applied for abolishment of paternity, which was not granted.

The court had argued that he had applied for the annulment of paternity a couple of months too late. According to the Finnish law men have up to two years to apply for voiding paternity of a child born in wedlock, which turns out to be biologically unrelated. The deadline could be extended only for significant reasons...

... The case has incited social media uproar with many Finns finding the ruling unjust and some commenting on the need for a “We Too” movement in defence of men’s rights.

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

#### Derec

##### Contributor
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.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Damn, Europe sure has been dying a lot lately. They should rename it Kenny.

#### prideandfall

##### Veteran Member
Why is it that these alleged "bureaucratic stumbling blocks" always favor the woman and screw over the man?
because, as i have explained many times, there are three fundamental ingrained social constructs at play:
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.
2. historically women were literally incapable of providing for themselves and their dependents, due to the structure of civilization. it's only extremely recently that women being capable of being independent was even a thing, maybe 40 years at most.
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.

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.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Helsinki Times said:
The man’s wife had given birth to the child in 2014 but it was only two years later that he found out that he was not the biological father of the child. This resulted in the couple’s divorce and the man applied for abolishment of paternity, which was not granted.

The court had argued that he had applied for the annulment of paternity a couple of months too late. According to the Finnish law men have up to two years to apply for voiding paternity of a child born in wedlock, which turns out to be biologically unrelated. The deadline could be extended only for significant reasons...

... The case has incited social media uproar with many Finns finding the ruling unjust and some commenting on the need for a “We Too” movement in defence of men’s rights.

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

I do not think it is merely a bureaucratic stumbling block, nor do I think this individual event is fatal to Europe.

I assume, then, that you disagree with the law in this case, and the man should not be forced to pay child support for a child that is not his?

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Damn, Europe sure has been dying a lot lately. They should rename it Kenny.

Thank you for your thoughtful and substantive response.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Damn, Europe sure has been dying a lot lately. They should rename it Kenny.

Thank you for your thoughtful and substantive response.

You're welcome, hon.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
In Finland, does alimony include child support or not? If not, then the question of paternity annulment does not affect an award or the amount of alimony.

It seems to me that the Finnish court ruled based on Finnish law. If someone has a problem with the ruling on paternity annulment, the problem is not with the court but that law.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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.

Finland, of course, has a generous and comprehensive welfare system funded by tax money.

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 thing

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

Child support, to provide for your own children, is and should be a thing. Child support, to provide for children that are not yours, unfortunately is a thing.

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

I don't recall making any posts specifically decrying government support of women and children. In fact, the only time I've specifically commented on such a thing, I recall saying that it was ludicrous to target one man to support a child that was not his own, and the only fair thing to do is for everybody (that is, taxpayers) to support such children.

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.

I'm sorry that you do not find the stories to be of interest. Perhaps in the future you might stay out of such threads, instead of coming in to them for the sole purpose of fantasising about what I spend my time doing, and to be nasty.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
In Finland, does alimony include child support or not? If not, then the question of paternity annulment does not affect an award or the amount of alimony.

It seems to me that the Finnish court ruled based on Finnish law. If someone has a problem with the ruling on paternity annulment, the problem is not with the court but that law.

Well yes: the problem is obviously with the law.

#### prideandfall

##### Veteran Member
Finland, of course, has a generous and comprehensive welfare system funded by tax money.
which apparently it chooses to supplement with alimony and child support. perhaps you should move there and try to enact governmental reform.

Child support, to provide for your own children, is and should be a thing. Child support, to provide for children that are not yours, unfortunately is a thing.
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?

I don't recall making any posts specifically decrying government support of women and children. In fact, the only time I've specifically commented on such a thing, I recall saying that it was ludicrous to target one man to support a child that was not his own, and the only fair thing to do is for everybody (that is, taxpayers) to support such children.
well i guess that answers the question above that you support paying taxes to support single mothers.

I'm sorry that you do not find the stories to be of interest. Perhaps in the future you might stay out of such threads, instead of coming in to them for the sole purpose of fantasising about what I spend my time doing, and to be nasty.
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.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
In the OP article, it is reported the man is required to pay alimony, but there is no report about child support (perhaps I missed this). In the US, alimony and child support are usually separate. Is that the case in Finland? If they are, then the paternity issue is irrelevant to the issue of alimony.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
which apparently it chooses to supplement with alimony and child support. perhaps you should move there and try to enact governmental reform.

Every country's laws need reform, including my own. I certainly don't see why I should move to one specific European country because an incident in it serves as an example of something going on in much of the world.

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?

In cases where the biological father never consented to be a father (I am thinking here of women who raped boys), he ought not be forced to pay. In cases where the biological father is dead, imprisoned, unknown, unemployed, or otherwise unable to pay, the child should be supported by the state, as the child would be in any case even in an intact home where there was insufficient income.

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.

Appealing to the appalling behaviour of others does not excuse your own.

It's true that I am slammed for many of the things I say. But, for your charge that not one person gives a single fuck about any of the things I post: what is your take home message from that? That minority opinions are unwelcome on this board, and people should self-select out of posting stories that do not interest or gel with the majority?

I'm not sure why you are calling my response a 'cutesy innocent act'. When I say I do not appreciate people posting on my topics simply to be dismissive and nasty, I don't know what is 'cute' or 'innocent' about that admission. If you mean my response to ZiprHead was ironic, it obviously was. Yet I don't think my words were 'cute' or 'innocent'.

If, on the other hand, you think my topic and responses are absent the hyperbole and bombast that usually accompanies them, are you criticising me for that?

#### Arctish

##### Centimillionaire
Helsinki Times said:
The man’s wife had given birth to the child in 2014 but it was only two years later that he found out that he was not the biological father of the child. This resulted in the couple’s divorce and the man applied for abolishment of paternity, which was not granted.

The court had argued that he had applied for the annulment of paternity a couple of months too late. According to the Finnish law men have up to two years to apply for voiding paternity of a child born in wedlock, which turns out to be biologically unrelated. The deadline could be extended only for significant reasons...

... The case has incited social media uproar with many Finns finding the ruling unjust and some commenting on the need for a “We Too” movement in defence of men’s rights.

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

I do not think it is merely a bureaucratic stumbling block, nor do I think this individual event is fatal to Europe.

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?

I assume, then, that you disagree with the law in this case, and the man should not be forced to pay child support for a child that is not his?

I agree that an individual should not be forced to pay child support for a child that isn't their's, nor required to fulfill a parental role. I do think they should be required to pay into their country's social safety net, and that the country should ensure that all children within it are supported and properly cared for.

I think laws should be updated in order to keep pace with advances in medical science and changes in society.

If the Finns want to keep the 2 year limit for challenging paternity, I think it should be two years to apply for voiding the child's assigned paternity upon learning the child's true paternity.

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.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
I do not think it is merely a bureaucratic stumbling block, nor do I think this individual event is fatal to Europe.

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?

I've explained this before, but I'll do so again.

An event can be associated with figurative death without causing that death or being caused by that death. Eating cake on a particular day did not cause you to become 12 years old. One cigarette does not cause your death, even if that cigarette contributed to a lung cancer that contributed to your death. The taste of salt does not cause hypertension, but ingesting salt raises your blood pressure.

The post is subtitled the way it is because I believe the OP, and my other OPs that bear the title, are all indicative of laws and aspects of culture that are ultimately harmful and, if sustained or even enlarged, contribute to a general decline in that culture.

I think the law should be updated in order to keep pace with advances in medical science and changes in society.

If the Finns want to keep the 2 year limit, I think it should be two years to apply for voiding the child's assigned paternity upon learning the child's true paternity.

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 be recipients of it.

Don't you think your response here actually contributes to the OP in a way your first response did not? (The law is not a bureaucratic stumbling block, the ruling was not somehow a mistake or inconvenient).

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
In the OP article, it is reported the man is required to pay alimony, but there is no report about child support (perhaps I missed this). In the US, alimony and child support are usually separate. Is that the case in Finland? If they are, then the paternity issue is irrelevant to the issue of alimony.

The OP article seems to be automatically translated from Finnish. A different translation appears here:

https://nord.news/2020/10/18/a-finn...rt-for-cheating-on-his-wife-with-another-man/

Unfortunately, I can't tell from this (auto)translation either whether the 'alimony' in the first story is actually 'child support', as this translation uses the term 'maintenance'.

The court had claimed that he had applied for annulment of paternity a couple of months too late. According to Finnish law, men have a maximum of two years to apply for the annulment of the paternity of a child born in wedlock, which proves to be biologically independent. The deadline could only be extended for significant reasons.

The man had claimed that the fact, which he had found out only later and was shocked by the announcement of the divorce and mental suffering. The court had not considered these reasons to be sufficiently significant.

The child’s mother had subsequently sued the man for maintenance and the court had ruled that he was obliged to pay maintenance as well as court proceedings to the fraudulent wife who had brought her to justice.

In either case, I do not believe that 'alimony' (State-enforced payment to a spouse after the dissolution of a relationship) should be a thing at all in any circumstance, in Western countries, in 2020. And I do not believe that someone who is not the biological father or mother of a child ought be forced to pay child support. (And in some cases, the biological parents ought not be forced, either).

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
I believe in the US, there is no functional difference between maintenance and alimony. That may not be true in Finland. So, it is not clear that this man was ordered to pay child support.

If there is no child support in this case, then there is no "strange death" of Europe.

#### Arctish

##### Centimillionaire
I've explained this before, but I'll do so again.

An event can be associated with figurative death without causing that death or being caused by that death. Eating cake on a particular day did not cause you to become 12 years old. One cigarette does not cause your death, even if that cigarette contributed to a lung cancer that contributed to your death. The taste of salt does not cause hypertension, but ingesting salt raises your blood pressure.

The post is subtitled the way it is because I believe the OP, and my other OPs that bear the title, are all indicative of laws and aspects of culture that are ultimately harmful and, if sustained or even enlarged, contribute to a general decline in that culture.

Then perhaps instead of talking about the "strange death of Europe" (and yes, I know you're fond of the phrase), you should call things like this an indication of unhealthy stagnation.

I think the law should be updated in order to keep pace with advances in medical science and changes in society.

If the Finns want to keep the 2 year limit, I think it should be two years to apply for voiding the child's assigned paternity upon learning the child's true paternity.

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 be recipients of it.

Don't you think your response here actually contributes to the OP in a way your first response did not?

I do. But that doesn't mean I think my first response was lacking substance.

My first response highlighted the Finnish law and court ruling that led to what appears to be an unjust outcome, and that Progressives are calling for change. My second response was to spell out what changes I think the Finns should make to ensure greater fairness for people like the man in the OP. Both posts contributed to the discussion.

(The law is not a bureaucratic stumbling block, the ruling was not somehow a mistake or inconvenient).

The stumbling block is the two year time limit to challenge paternity. It's arbitrary, unnecessary, and an obstacle for people in situations like the one described in the OP.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
I believe in the US, there is no functional difference between maintenance and alimony. That may not be true in Finland. So, it is not clear that this man was ordered to pay child support.

If there is no child support in this case, then there is no "strange death" of Europe.

On the contrary: child support in this case forced from a cuckolded father would be inappropriate. Alimony would also be inappropriate in this case and any case, in Western countries, in 2020.

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
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.

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

I'm not going to say the man is either a brute or cruel since that wasn't mentioned in OP, nor was anything about responsibilities of women for that matter.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Then perhaps instead of talking about the "strange death of Europe" (and yes, I know you're fond of the phrase), you should call things like this an indication of unhealthy stagnation.

I do not believe that I should jettison a figurative subtitle that I like simply because some people use it as a cudgel to avoid engaging with the substance of the post. Such people are not interested in engaging with the substance.

My first response highlighted the Finnish law and court ruling that led to what appears to be an unjust outcome,

It did not. You did not indicate in any way you thought it was unjust, nor did you acknowledge that the philosophical premise behind the law might be faulty.

and that Progressives are calling for change.

How did you first post indicate anything of the kind?

The stumbling block is the two year time limit to challenge paternity. It's arbitrary, unnecessary, and presents an obstacle to a just and fair outcome for people in situations like the one described in the OP.

This 'stumbling block' is part of the philosophy of the law. The law was not fashioned with any interest in protecting cuckolded men. If it were, the time limit would not have been written into the law in the first place.

#### Arctish

##### Centimillionaire
I do not believe that I should jettison a figurative subtitle that I like simply because some people use it as a cudgel to avoid engaging with the substance of the post. Such people are not interested in engaging with the substance.

I'm not using it as a cudgel and I'm not avoiding engaging with the substance. I'm asking why you use that phrase to describe things that aren't actually indicative of the death of Europe or likely to cause its death.

If the answer is you're using it for dramatic effect, then it's just the verbal equivalent of a parsley sprig and I can ignore it.

Metaphor said:
It did not. You did not indicate in any way you thought it was unjust, nor did you acknowledge that the philosophical premise behind the law might be faulty.

and that Progressives are calling for change.

How did you first post indicate anything of the kind?

I put it right in the post title: This week in the on-going life of Europe: arbitrary deadline results in injustice, Progressives demand change.

Then I quoted this part of the article:

Helsinki Times said:
... The case has incited social media uproar with many Finns finding the ruling unjust and some commenting on the need for a “We Too” movement in defence of men’s rights.

I'll admit, I'm assuming they're Progressives but I believe their actions justify the assumption.

Metaphor said:
The stumbling block is the two year time limit to challenge paternity. It's arbitrary, unnecessary, and presents an obstacle to a just and fair outcome for people in situations like the one described in the OP.

This 'stumbling block' is part of the philosophy of the law. The law was not fashioned with any interest in protecting cuckolded men. If it were, the time limit would not have been written into the law in the first place.

I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
I'm not using it as a cudgel and I'm not avoiding engaging with the substance. I'm asking why you use that phrase to describe things that aren't actually indicative of the death of Europe or likely to cause its death.

I've explained my use of it.

If the answer is you're using it for dramatic effect, then it's just the verbal equivalent of a parsley sprig and I can ignore it.

Well, of course it's for dramatic effect, but that doesn't mean it's empty.

I put it right in the post title: This week in the on-going life of Europe: arbitrary deadline results in injustice, Progressives demand change.

I missed that you'd titled your response. I rarely use the feature myself.

I'll admit, I'm assuming they're Progressives but I believe their actions justify the assumption.

I'm not sure what you mean by a capital-p "Progressive".

I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

Whether that is true or not, that does not address my assertion.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
In Finland, does alimony include child support or not? If not, then the question of paternity annulment does not affect an award or the amount of alimony.
In this case, the article was mistranslated, as it was about child support only. Alimony to support an ex-spouse is rare, and always limited in time.

It seems to me that the Finnish court ruled based on Finnish law. If someone has a problem with the ruling on paternity annulment, the problem is not with the court but that law.
Correct. The two-year time limit to annul the parenthood is the crux of the issue. In this case, at least the guy had the opportunity to meet the deadline. If the woman had kept the secret six months longer, then the annulment wouldn't even be an option and he would have been stuck with the child support payments anyway.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

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. Secondly it makes me smarter.

Across the border in Ohio I get to walk away from child support.

My state is dying.

#### ideologyhunter

##### Veteran Member
Across the border in Ohio I get to walk away from child support.

Papa gots to have his lottery tickets.

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

He doesn't have to. Because, you know, he's found another piece of anecdotal evidence.

In this particular case, from what we know, it seems unfair to the father. I think we can all agree on that. And the mother seems, I think, especially blameworthy for seeking money from him for the child, because of the particular circumstances. But we do actually know very little about the case.

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.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
which apparently it chooses to supplement with alimony and child support. perhaps you should move there and try to enact governmental reform.

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?

I don't recall making any posts specifically decrying government support of women and children. In fact, the only time I've specifically commented on such a thing, I recall saying that it was ludicrous to target one man to support a child that was not his own, and the only fair thing to do is for everybody (that is, taxpayers) to support such children.
well i guess that answers the question above that you support paying taxes to support single mothers.

I'm sorry that you do not find the stories to be of interest. Perhaps in the future you might stay out of such threads, instead of coming in to them for the sole purpose of fantasising about what I spend my time doing, and to be nasty.
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.

I will correct you here. Some people care because of the bias in how these stories are posted, usually with enough spin that it makes me wonder if it's enough that if we shot them to the moon, if we could seismically reignite the damn thing.

Whenever "the local cabal" posts here, all I can imagine is Sadam Hussein's south park depiction and the character's classic dissembling routine, and maybe the scene from the movie where he was all "I can change, oh, look, I'm changing, ok now I'm totally different!"

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
He doesn't have to. Because, you know, he's found another piece of anecdotal evidence.

I don't have to know anything about Finnish law other than what is revealed by this story: that a man who is not the biological father of a child can nevertheless be compelled to pay for that child.

In this particular case, from what we know, it seems unfair to the father. I think we can all agree on that.

Really? TGG Moogly who posted above you doesn't seem to think that.

And the mother seems, I think, especially blameworthy for seeking money from him for the child, because of the particular circumstances. But we do actually know very little about the case.

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?

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

He doesn't have to. Because, you know, he's found another piece of anecdotal evidence.

In this particular case, from what we know, it seems unfair to the father. I think we can all agree on that. And the mother seems, I think, especially blameworthy for seeking money from him for the child, because of the particular circumstances. But we do actually know very little about the case.

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.

One thing to mention here is that this idiot seems so concerned with genetics that he is throwing away his best chance to pass on everything that is him but is not genetic. Like, just flushing it all down the toilet.

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.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
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. Secondly it makes me smarter.

It doesn't make you smarter. It makes you a literal cuckold.

Across the border in Ohio I get to walk away from child support.

Then across the border, in a state where cuckolded men are not forced by the State to pay for children that are not their own, there is less injustice in that respect.

My state is dying.

You can always move to Ohio.

#### Metaphor

Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
One thing to mention here is that this idiot seems so concerned with genetics that he is throwing away his best chance to pass on everything that is him but is not genetic.

You don't know that he is doing anything of the sort. You don't know his age or his future fathering chances, nor indeed might he feel the inherently selfish desire to 'pass on' 'everything that is him', as you clearly do. Nor is he an 'idiot' for having feelings that you do not have.

Like, just flushing it all down the toilet.

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.

Then your critical thinking skills and imagination are shockingly poor.

Your situation is different in almost every conceivable aspect. You are voluntarily taking on the adoption of a child you know not to be yours biologically, with no deceptions to you and you are, presumably, of mind sound enough to make that decision.

Some men--as inconceivable as it may seem to you--enter into monogamous heterosexual marriages with women, and with the understanding that any offspring produced would be produced by that union.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Some men--as inconceivable as it may seem to you--enter into monogamous heterosexual marriages with women, and with the understanding that any offspring produced would be produced by that union.
If they do that in Finland, they should be aware of the law. And that it puts more weight on stability of the relationship than genetics. I don't think that the time limit of just two years is fair though. It's hardly enough time to form a bond with a child that will probably not even remember you, if the mother decides to elope.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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.

#### Elixir

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?

Of course not. The women are to suffer in silence, as the man's love-child payments come out of the household budget. She might otherwise have been able to afford a maid.
He probably should have stuck with hookers, right?

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Some men--as inconceivable as it may seem to you--enter into monogamous heterosexual marriages with women, and with the understanding that any offspring produced would be produced by that union.
If they do that in Finland, they should be aware of the law. And that it puts more weight on stability of the relationship than genetics. I don't think that the time limit of just two years is fair though. It's hardly enough time to form a bond with a child that will probably not even remember you, if the mother decides to elope.

The thing is, two years is more than enough time to have a paternity test done.

Personally, I am in a (mostly) monogamous marriage with a human capable of hosting a pregnancy. If offspring are produced, that's great. It's more of a bill I can make insurance foot rather than having to shell out for lawyers to adopt.

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".

If you can't commit to being a father, if you care more about being a sperm donor, then go donate some sperm instead.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
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.

#### scombrid

##### Senior Member
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.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
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

##### Senior Member
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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.

Last edited:

#### ruby sparks

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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

##### Contributor
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?