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]

The husband did not challenge paternity until after the very generous 2 year time limit.

Why would he? He had apparently been fooled into thinking it was he and his wife's own biological child for those 2 years, during which time she was apparently continuing the affair with the other guy*, so the husband was being fooled big time, in more ways than one. He's arguably lucky he wasn't her employer as well, because then he'd have been embezzled by her too.

*Which suggests she may have known who the biological father was from the start.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not a peep from Toni or anyone else on why the biological father escapes all responsibility.

They're usually scumbags with little money, not useful wallets.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not a peep from Toni or anyone else on why the biological father escapes all responsibility.

They're usually scumbags with little money, not useful wallets.

Also, it strikes me as a pretty important question to ask in deriving principles as to whether Metaphor thinks that the biological father ought be tracked down and be forced to pay child support?

 

[ruby sparks]

One would have thought that by now, the issue having gone to court and so on, that the identity of the biological father would at least be known, even if for whatever legal or circumstantial reason he is not being pursued. Indeed, he himself may have found out about his being the biological father. We don't know that he did know that before. He's oddly out of the picture. Was he also married, I wonder?

We really don't know a lot about this case.

 

[Jayjay]

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

The thing is, and it's pretty important: he did want a child.

We have no indication of this. He accepted that he had a child, that doesn't mean that he wanted to create one.

Well in this case he did. The couple had been trying to have a child for years and even went to a fertility clinic (though obviously, didn't go as far as to resort to IVF treatments, or they didn't take).

 

[ruby sparks]

We have no indication of this. He accepted that he had a child, that doesn't mean that he wanted to create one.

Well in this case he did. The couple had been trying to have a child for years and even went to a fertility clinic (though obviously, didn't go as far as to resort to IVF treatments).

Yes, I read that. In some ways, it makes me feel for him even more. The high of finally becoming a father must have been dashed when he found out not just that it wasn't his, biologically, but that his wife had been having and was still having an affair with the biological father. I am not surprised that it seems (according to reports) to have sent him into a downward spiral and perhaps what might be called a nervous breakdown. The infidelity alone could have triggered that, for some spouses, male or female.

Furthermore, do we know that he is completely rejecting the child? I'm not sure we do. His moving out to stay with a co-worker in the middle of such a crisis shortly after getting the bad news does not of itself necessarily mean that. It was the wife who shortly after that both filed for divorce, and applied for sole custody, I think?

 

[laughing dog]

It's shared by enough of them for comments and hashtags on social media to appear.

Oh well, then clearly a majority of Finns will quickly work to change the injustice.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I value your counsel.

The first step is admitting you have a problem. Next step, get the help you need.

I suppose all kinds of things are possible, until they are proved impossible.

But, of course, your imagined scenario makes things worse, not better. It is justifying state coercion to get a man who has the wrong feelings have the right feelings instead.

It is not justifying anything. It was an observation of a possibility. Only in fuckedupville is educating people to have right feelings making matters worse.

I understand the situation. I have the facts. If all I was interested in was 'was the ruling sound according to Finnish law', I'd have asked that in the OP.

Actually, from the start of the OP, you have not had all the relevant facts. No one has. We still don't.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course there is a justification - Trausti gave it. It is a justification you don't like it.

IMO, the notion of no time limit is linked to the notion that a child is basically no more than a financial liability.

So it's better to pick one victim to screw badly than to spread the burden?

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

 

[RVonse]

Not a peep from Toni or anyone else on why the biological father escapes all responsibility.

They're usually scumbags with little money, not useful wallets.

Also, it strikes me as a pretty important question to ask in deriving principles as to whether Metaphor thinks that the biological father ought be tracked down and be forced to pay child support?

I'm not Metaphor but I agree with his position. And yes, the biological father should be tracked down for the child support.

 

[Jayjay]

Also, it strikes me as a pretty important question to ask in deriving principles as to whether Metaphor thinks that the biological father ought be tracked down and be forced to pay child support?

I'm not Metaphor but I agree with his position. And yes, the biological father should be tracked down for the child support.

If the mother wanted to, she could do that. For one reason or another, she wants the ex-husband to pay. It could be either because he has higher income, or because she doesn't like him very much. For all we know, she might still be in a relationship with the bio-dad. We don't know her side of the story.

 

[ruby sparks]

It may not be a coincidence that the couple were having difficulty having a child, and that she ended up getting pregnant by another man. Would that tend to suggest that the fertility problems were more on the husband's side? Not conclusively by any means, perhaps.

I know it's very speculative, but it could be that the woman thought (perhaps not even fully consciously) 'well, my husband can't give me the child I so want, so I will try elsewhere'.

Men having affairs with married women do not generally tend to want them to get pregnant. I'm generalising, obviously.

Whatever happened, it's all very sad, for everyone involved. I bet neither he nor she would have wanted this at the start, when they presumably fell in love. And now there is a child without a proper father.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sometimes, not being able to have a child can lead some people to do crazy things that even they never thought they would do. Perhaps especially women. We guys don't have that ticking clock inside. Our gametes, if they're healthy, are good for almost as many years as we can manage to get the delivery system up.

But, say your man gametes are not that super-duper. That hurts a man in a very tender area, if he wants a child with his partner. Then, your wife avails of another man's gametes, and is still seeing him behind your back. Ouch.

That she was still seeing the other guy, and filed for divorce (and later, sole custody) so soon after the truth came out, does not suggest she truly wanted to stay with the husband all that much.

I would not however say for sure he was a total angel and she was a total demon. I think it's rarely that simple. Men do things they would not think they would do, such as lash out from a place of hurt.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sometimes, not being able to have a child can lead some people to do crazy things that even they never thought they would do. Perhaps especially women. We guys don't have that ticking clock inside. Our gametes, if they're healthy, are good for almost as many years as we can manage to get the delivery system up.

But, say your man gametes are not that super-duper. That hurts a man in a very tender area, if he wants a child with his partner. Then, your wife avails of another, and is still seeing him. Ouch.

Which gets back to my point about him being a choosing beggar.

At any rate, she's being a raging cunt too, if she's trying to hook him for child support while also going for sole custody.

Neither of these people deserve children.

 

[ruby sparks]

Which gets back to my point about him being a choosing beggar.

As I said, I don't tend to agree with you on that.

At any rate, she's being a raging cunt too...

I'm not seeing enough to put them on a par like that.

Neither of these people deserve children.

You're not judgemental at all, about people whose lives you know next to nothing about, are you?

Ok I take that back. We're all making speculative judgements here.

I'm just glad it didn't happen to me.

 

[Toni]

Sometimes, not being able to have a child can lead some people to do crazy things that even they never thought they would do. Perhaps especially women. We guys don't have that ticking clock inside. Our gametes, if they're healthy, are good for almost as many years as we can manage to get the delivery system up.

But, say your man gametes are not that super-duper. That hurts a man in a very tender area, if he wants a child with his partner. Then, your wife avails of another man's gametes, and is still seeing him behind your back. Ouch.

That she was still seeing the other guy, and filed for divorce (and later, sole custody) so soon after the truth came out, does not suggest she truly wanted to stay with the husband all that much.

I would not however say for sure he was a total angel and she was a total demon. I think it's rarely that simple. Men do things they would not think they would do, such as lash out from a place of hurt.

Actually, the potential for genetic abnormalities in offspring also increases with paternal age. We tend to think mostly of the increase of genetic abnormalities and other difficulties for mother and child if the mother is older but it's also a factor for men over 50 ( It may be older--don't have my source at the moment).

 

[Toni]

The husband did not challenge paternity until after the very generous 2 year time limit.

Why would he? He had apparently been fooled into thinking it was he and his wife's own biological child for those 2 years, during which time she was apparently continuing the affair with the other guy*, so the husband was being fooled big time, in more ways than one. He's arguably lucky he wasn't her employer as well, because then he'd have been embezzled by her too.

*Which suggests she may have known who the biological father was from the start.

You don't know that he was fooled anymore than that she was fooled.

The link doesn't provide particulars into their relationship or into the relationship the woman had with the genetic father, etc. We just don't know enough about the situation to do anything other than speculate.

 

[Toni]

The husband did not challenge paternity until after the very generous 2 year time limit.

Why would he? He had apparently been fooled into thinking it was he and his wife's own biological child for those 2 years, during which time she was apparently continuing the affair with the other guy*, so the husband was being fooled big time, in more ways than one. He's arguably lucky he wasn't her employer as well, because then he'd have been embezzled by her too.

*Which suggests she may have known who the biological father was from the start.

We know no such thing. She may well have believed her husband was the father. She may have always used a condom with the other guy. It seems unlikely that she conceived deliberately. Perhaps condoms did break with her husband?

We really don't know and it is unfair to say that she deliberately deceived anyone. Like I said upthread: doctors make mistakes about due dates. That happened to me, although there was only one person who could possibly have been the father.

It is only misogyny that allows men to assume that she had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person. Men also frequently lie about their marital status, their fertility, their willingness to be responsible if there is a child, and so on. Do we think these men's employers are fortunate the men don't embezzle from them? People lie about sex all the time, including whether they enjoyed it, whether she orgasmed, whether he would pull out in time, whether they had had a vasectomy, whether they intend to see you again ever, and so on.

This is why I wrote that people should be selective in their sex partners and also why men would be wise to take responsibility for birth control.

 

[Metaphor]

You don't know that the marriage was (supposedly) monogamous.

Your phantasias are unconstrained by the facts.

He was devastated when he found out his wife had had an affair and his child wasn't his. A consensually 'open' marriage is completely inconsistent with being surprised and devastated with finding out your wife has had outside sex.

In a way you are right. The marriage was certainly not monogamous, but it was because his wife violated the marriage, not because it was agreed to beforehand.

You don't know that anyone had unprotected sex. Birth control fails.

Is there any straw you won't grasp? To what end would whether it was protected or unprotected sex in the marriage make a difference?

He DID 'consent' to being father to this child. The one that was growing in her belly. Does the man get to withdraw his consent if the child is the wrong gender? Has a physical or genetic abnormality? Is gay or transgender or ambiguously sexed? Hearing impaired? Blind? Has the wrong color hair?

Oy gevalt. He consented to the child growing in her 'belly' (womb or uterus, darling, we're not five years old), with the understanding that the child growing in her 'belly' was his. We know this because he was devastated when he found out it was not his. In other words, he consented to another event which did not happen.

When you consent to sex, Toni, do you consent to everything and anything sexual a man could do to you? If you consent to penis-in-vagina sex, does that mean you consented to anal sex? If you consented to being spanked on the bottom, does that mean you consented to being choked out?

Your double standards beggar belief. Do you think a mother ought not be able to withdraw consent to being a mother for the child being the wrong gender, or any reason, or no reason at all? You would scream blue murder if I suggested that a woman consenting to sex meant she was consenting to motherhood.

We do not know when the mother knew that her husband was not the father or how that information came to be revealed to either of them. For all we know, she believed her husband was the father of the child and only later considered it could have been the other guy. We do not know.

Irrelevant. I haven't suggested that she knew for certain he was the father and it is completely irrelevant whether she did. He did not consent to be the father.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh well, then clearly a majority of Finns will quickly work to change the injustice.

Yes, legislatures in every country in the world are known for their swiftness and responsiveness to the people!

In any case, I did not suggest that the majority of the Finnish people know about the law or would support change if they knew. I am simply dismissing your implication that nobody cares.

It is not justifying anything. It was an observation of a possibility. Only in fuckedupville is educating people to have right feelings making matters worse.

I hope your job application at Miniluv is successful.

Actually, from the start of the OP, you have not had all the relevant facts. No one has. We still don't.

I have the facts that both you and Toni have quoted back at me as if I didn't know them. I do know the facts as written, as do you and Toni. Quoting the facts at me as if I'd somehow mistaken them is a curious exercise in time wasting.

 

[Metaphor]

Not a peep from Toni or anyone else on why the biological father escapes all responsibility.

They're usually scumbags with little money, not useful wallets.

Also, it strikes me as a pretty important question to ask in deriving principles as to whether Metaphor thinks that the biological father ought be tracked down and be forced to pay child support?

Of course he fucking should be. Can there be any doubt about my position? When I explicitly and repeatedly challenged the people who think the cuckolded husband should be made to pay by asking 'what about the biological father', what is it you think I meant?

Sometimes, biological fathers ought not be forced to pay. Literal anonymous sperm donors should not be forced. Boys who were raped by women should not be forced.

But in this circumstance, where the law is going to forcibly extract support from some man somewhere? The most obvious candidate is the biological father.

And on this point, from Toni and laughing dog: complete silence.