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

[Toni]

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.

phantasias???????

We have no idea whether or not he was monogamous. Or that mutual monogamy was what they agreed upon. Open marriages often come with rules, and one of those rules might well be: no procreating with other partners. Despite what people agree to in the cold light of day, emotions do come into play for normal people. Finding out that a child you thought was yours genetically is not in fact your genetically linked child can be devastating. Even if you knew the woman was having sex with someone else.

As I've written before: I understand completely why he is so upset and so devastated. Under the same circumstances 40 years ago, he would likely have never known and been happy for all the years of the marriage. He would have had a lovely child to love and to be loved by, perhaps grandchildren, Who knows?

Life sometimes hands you a really crappy deal. You don't have to make it crappier by shitting on a kid because you're angry with his mother.

Is there any straw you won't grasp?

Apparently there is no straw you wont plant, harvest, dry and grip onto with a death grip in order to prove that women are bad, terrible, horrible people.

To what end would whether it was protected or unprotected sex in the marriage make a difference?

Unprotected sex suggests that they were trying for a child. As far as we know, she was as devastated to learn that her husband was not the father as the husband. We simply don't know the facts aside from the fact that the Finnish courts said that he did not challenge paternity within the 2 year period of time established to make such challenges and that the child was the result of an affair by the wife.

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

.

Pretending to be Jewish again, are we?

He consented to the child growing in her 'belly' (womb or uterus, darling, we're not five years old)

,
We're also not in Sunday school or a biology class. Even my obstetrician did not refer to my womb or uterus, ffs. I thought we were grown ups here but I've been wrong before.

BTW, he had no right to consent or not consent to a child growing in her belly. It was her belly. He (and perhaps she) believed it was his child. He accepted the child as his, presumably had his name registered on the child's birth certificate, acted as the child's father, etc. for more than two years.

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.

But he did NOT register any resistance to being that child's father! He did not insist on a paternity test during pregnancy or shortly after birth. He acted as the child's father. That's consent.

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.

Of course he did. He consented to be the child's father until he learned something that upset him. And even then, according to the article you linked, he did not register his objections under the 2 year limit--and apparently, he knew before the 2 years had elapsed.

 

[Metaphor]

phantasias???????

We have no idea whether or not he was monogamous.

Irrelevant. If he wasn't, so what? You would expect him to be responsible for any children he fathered outside the marriage wouldn't you? You already expect him to be responsible for children he didn't father.

Or that mutual monogamy was what they agreed upon.

It is usually the case in heterosexual marriages that the marriage is monogamous. I know many married couples, and only one of them is polyamorous/open.

But whether it was or not, even if it was polyamorous/open, you do not know that he consented to be the social father to any and all offspring resulting from her partnerings. Although you claim you do. You literally say he consented to it.

Open marriages often come with rules, and one of those rules might well be: no procreating with other partners.

That makes it worse. You are then saying flat out that he did not consent.

Despite what people agree to in the cold light of day, emotions do come into play for normal people. Finding out that a child you thought was yours genetically is not in fact your genetically linked child can be devastating. Even if you knew the woman was having sex with someone else.

As I've written before: I understand completely why he is so upset and so devastated. Under the same circumstances 40 years ago, he would likely have never known and been happy for all the years of the marriage. He would have had a lovely child to love and to be loved by, perhaps grandchildren, Who knows?

Life sometimes hands you a really crappy deal. You don't have to make it crappier by shitting on a kid because you're angry with his mother.

He has no moral obligation to father a child that is not his and that he did not consent to. He is not 'shitting' on a kid. The kid was shat on by a cuckolding mother and a biological father that obviously does not care (or perhaps does not know).

Apparently there is no straw you wont plant, harvest, dry and grip onto with a death grip in order to prove that women are bad, terrible, horrible people.

Women as a class of people? No, they are not. Why do you think I think that, when I've never said that?

Unprotected sex suggests that they were trying for a child.

Yes, they may have been having penis-in-vagina sex specifically so that they could have a child that is genetically theirs together. That means he did not consent to having a child that is not his.

As far as we know, she was as devastated to learn that her husband was not the father as the husband.

So what?

Pretending to be Jewish again, are we?

I have never pretended to be Jewish. I grew up with 'The Nanny' as one of my favourite shows, and I fell in love with Yiddish.

We're also not in Sunday school or a biology class. Even my obstetrician did not refer to my womb or uterus, ffs. I thought we were grown ups here but I've been wrong before.

BTW, he had no right to consent or not consent to a child growing in her belly. It was her belly. He (and perhaps she) believed it was his child. He accepted the child as his, presumably had his name registered on the child's birth certificate, acted as the child's father, etc. for more than two years.

Yes. He did all these things under false pretences. He did them thinking the child was genetically his.

But he did NOT register any resistance to being that child's father! He did not insist on a paternity test during pregnancy or shortly after birth. He acted as the child's father. That's consent.

No, it is not.

Do you know what consent would look like in this situation? I'll tell you, because you have no fucking clue what consent looks like.

Consent would look like this:

"Honey, I'm pregnant. But there's a possibility the child is not yours. I have been having sex with another man in addition to you. Will you be a father to this child, even if you later find out it isn't yours genetically?"

Many years ago, I balked at a university-run sexual consent course, because I already know how to not rape people.

I can see now that that course is sorely needed. Because you have no fucking clue what consent is.

(Consent, by the way, is synonymous with informed consent).

Of course he did. He consented to be the child's father until he learned something that upset him. And even then, according to the article you linked, he did not register his objections under the 2 year limit--and apparently, he knew before the 2 years had elapsed.

You have no fucking clue what consent looks like.

 

[Metaphor]

Calling out Toni and laughing dog again.

Why have you left the biological father off the hook?

I mean, I know why you've been silent on responding to the question. You haven't yet figured out how to get purchase on a narrative that gets the cuckold on the hook and the biological father off the hook, without also giving carte blanche to letting bio fathers off the hook, or without destroying your justification for punishing the cuckold.

But, I'm waiting. Every person reading the thread is waiting.

 

[laughing dog]

Calling out Toni and laughing dog again.

For some reason, you are under the delusion that posters are either required to read every one of your posts or that they are required to respond to your idiotic questions.

Why have you left the biological father off the hook?

I have done no such thing. I have not argued for or against the Finnish law. The biological father appears legally off the hook because the sperm donor is not the legal father. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of Finnish law for the Finnish people to address. I realize you feel you are the supreme arbiter of what is moral and what is proper, but you are not. The Finns have their own history, culture and society - it is up to them to develop, enact and enforce laws that fit their culture and history, not yours.

I mean, I know why you've been silent on responding to the question.

As usual, you know nothing.

You haven't yet figured out how to get purchase on a narrative that gets the cuckold on the hook and the biological father off the hook, without also giving carte blanche to letting bio fathers off the hook, or without destroying your justification for punishing the cuckold.

You are babbling.

But, I'm waiting. Every person reading the thread is waiting.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[Jayjay]

The biological father is off the hook because of the same time limit that the man in this case failed to meet. The mother also cannot change her mind about who the father is. To change the legal paternity requires consent from both the current parents, as well as the biological father. So not even the mother, nor the state, can force the biological father to accept the responsibility of child support against his wishes.

 

[Toni]

Irrelevant. If he wasn't, so what? You would expect him to be responsible for any children he fathered outside the marriage wouldn't you? You already expect him to be responsible for children he didn't father.



It is usually the case in heterosexual marriages that the marriage is monogamous. I know many married couples, and only one of them is polyamorous/open.

But whether it was or not, even if it was polyamorous/open, you do not know that he consented to be the social father to any and all offspring resulting from her partnerings. Although you claim you do. You literally say he consented to it.

Open marriages often come with rules, and one of those rules might well be: no procreating with other partners.

That makes it worse. You are then saying flat out that he did not consent.

Despite what people agree to in the cold light of day, emotions do come into play for normal people. Finding out that a child you thought was yours genetically is not in fact your genetically linked child can be devastating. Even if you knew the woman was having sex with someone else.

As I've written before: I understand completely why he is so upset and so devastated. Under the same circumstances 40 years ago, he would likely have never known and been happy for all the years of the marriage. He would have had a lovely child to love and to be loved by, perhaps grandchildren, Who knows?

Life sometimes hands you a really crappy deal. You don't have to make it crappier by shitting on a kid because you're angry with his mother.

He has no moral obligation to father a child that is not his and that he did not consent to. He is not 'shitting' on a kid. The kid was shat on by a cuckolding mother and a biological father that obviously does not care (or perhaps does not know).

Apparently there is no straw you wont plant, harvest, dry and grip onto with a death grip in order to prove that women are bad, terrible, horrible people.

Women as a class of people? No, they are not. Why do you think I think that, when I've never said that?

Unprotected sex suggests that they were trying for a child.

Yes, they may have been having penis-in-vagina sex specifically so that they could have a child that is genetically theirs together. That means he did not consent to having a child that is not his.

As far as we know, she was as devastated to learn that her husband was not the father as the husband.

So what?

Pretending to be Jewish again, are we?

I have never pretended to be Jewish. I grew up with 'The Nanny' as one of my favourite shows, and I fell in love with Yiddish.

We're also not in Sunday school or a biology class. Even my obstetrician did not refer to my womb or uterus, ffs. I thought we were grown ups here but I've been wrong before.

BTW, he had no right to consent or not consent to a child growing in her belly. It was her belly. He (and perhaps she) believed it was his child. He accepted the child as his, presumably had his name registered on the child's birth certificate, acted as the child's father, etc. for more than two years.

Yes. He did all these things under false pretences. He did them thinking the child was genetically his.

But he did NOT register any resistance to being that child's father! He did not insist on a paternity test during pregnancy or shortly after birth. He acted as the child's father. That's consent.

No, it is not.

Do you know what consent would look like in this situation? I'll tell you, because you have no fucking clue what consent looks like.

Consent would look like this:

"Honey, I'm pregnant. But there's a possibility the child is not yours. I have been having sex with another man in addition to you. Will you be a father to this child, even if you later find out it isn't yours genetically?"

Many years ago, I balked at a university-run sexual consent course, because I already know how to not rape people.

I can see now that that course is sorely needed. Because you have no fucking clue what consent is.

(Consent, by the way, is synonymous with informed consent).

Of course he did. He consented to be the child's father until he learned something that upset him. And even then, according to the article you linked, he did not register his objections under the 2 year limit--and apparently, he knew before the 2 years had elapsed.

You have no fucking clue what consent looks like.

You just have no fucking clue.

 

[Toni]

The biological father is off the hook because of the same time limit that the man in this case failed to meet. The mother also cannot change her mind about who the father is. To change the legal paternity requires consent from both the current parents, as well as the biological father. So not even the mother, nor the state, can force the biological father to accept the responsibility of child support against his wishes.

There you go.

This makes sense.

IRL, I know a number of situations where the non-biological father assumed the role and responsibilities of fatherhood--and sadly, some where the bio father did not and yep, too many where the bio father refused to accept any responsibility for the child beyond threatening the mother to sue for custody if she pursed court ordered support. Men who divorced their wives for refusing to have an abortion. Men who skipped out on a marriage, and purposely took jobs that provided mostly room and board as compensation so that they could avoid paying anything at all in support of children they knew they had fathered in what their wives thought were mutually monogamous marriages. And those are all well educated men with good jobs, professional careers. I'm not talking about men who are chronologically still boys or who are struggling financially. And yeah, I've known some lousy, irresponsible mothers as well.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Well that's just cherry picking. In most jurisdictions (all I know of) visitation rights are tied
To being a legal parent. The legal concept of "person-with-all-the rights and none of the duties of a father" doesn't exist, either you are a legal parents (which is only partially determined by whether your a biological parent), or you are not. I'm not it should exist either. We can talk about extending visitation rights to other groups of people who are not parents, but unless that discussion includes enforceable visitation rights for half and step siblings, grandparents, maybe even former nannies, it's picking out the raisins for one group and one group only, which is a textbook example of discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

For some reason, you are under the delusion that posters are either required to read every one of your posts or that they are required to respond to your idiotic questions.

You are required to do neither and I never suggested otherwise.

I have done no such thing. I have not argued for or against the Finnish law. The biological father appears legally off the hook because the sperm donor is not the legal father. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of Finnish law for the Finnish people to address. I realize you feel you are the supreme arbiter of what is moral and what is proper, but you are not. The Finns have their own history, culture and society - it is up to them to develop, enact and enforce laws that fit their culture and history, not yours.

Your dodge is noted. I'm not interested in what the Finnish law is. I asked what you thought. And you've neglected to answer.

 

[Metaphor]

The biological father is off the hook because of the same time limit that the man in this case failed to meet. The mother also cannot change her mind about who the father is. To change the legal paternity requires consent from both the current parents, as well as the biological father. So not even the mother, nor the state, can force the biological father to accept the responsibility of child support against his wishes.

So, let me get this right.

If a woman successfully cuckolds her husband long enough, and fails to inform a biological father of his fatherhood, she can determine who the real father is?

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Metaphor]

You just have no fucking clue.

I'm glad we've had this dialogue. As usual, your deep, incisive analysis, unparalleled empathy, and admirable resistance to strawmanning your opponent's arguments are an asset to the message board. I hope your bio children have learned well from you.

 

[Metaphor]

Well that's just cherry picking. In most jurisdictions (all I know of) visitation rights are tied
To being a legal parent.

Not in Australia. Interested parties (like grandparents) can apply for visitation rights.

https://justicefamilylawyers.com.au/family-law/child-custody/grandparents-rights/

 

[Jokodo]

Well that's just cherry picking. In most jurisdictions (all I know of) visitation rights are tied
To being a legal parent.

Not in Australia. Interested parties (like grandparents) can apply for visitation rights.

https://justicefamilylawyers.com.au/family-law/child-custody/grandparents-rights/

Well then it appears the courts in Australia have a third option in cases like this, beyond either declaring the man a legal father with all the rights and duties, or a stranger with neither.

It doesn't however appear that Australian law is applicable to this particular case.

 

[Jokodo]

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?

 

[Jayjay]

The biological father is off the hook because of the same time limit that the man in this case failed to meet. The mother also cannot change her mind about who the father is. To change the legal paternity requires consent from both the current parents, as well as the biological father. So not even the mother, nor the state, can force the biological father to accept the responsibility of child support against his wishes.

So, let me get this right.

If a woman successfully cuckolds her husband long enough, and fails to inform a biological father of his fatherhood, she can determine who the real father is?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Not quite. After the time limit, she can't choose either. If a woman were to file a claim for annulling the fatherhood of her husband on the basis that he is not the biological father, the court would refuse to do so, unless she can prove that she had a good reason for missing the deadline. I suppose she could spin a yarn that she had no idea who the father was and only recently found out herself, but the burden of proof would be on her.

 

[Metaphor]

The biological father is off the hook because of the same time limit that the man in this case failed to meet. The mother also cannot change her mind about who the father is. To change the legal paternity requires consent from both the current parents, as well as the biological father. So not even the mother, nor the state, can force the biological father to accept the responsibility of child support against his wishes.

So, let me get this right.

If a woman successfully cuckolds her husband long enough, and fails to inform a biological father of his fatherhood, she can determine who the real father is?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Not quite. After the time limit, she can't choose either. If a woman were to file a claim for annulling the fatherhood of her husband on the basis that he is not the biological father, the court would refuse to do so, unless she can prove that she had a good reason for missing the deadline. I suppose she could spin a yarn that she had no idea who the father was and only recently found out herself, but the burden of proof would be on her.

And the bio father? Does he have no rights or obligations?

 

[Jokodo]

Not quite. After the time limit, she can't choose either. If a woman were to file a claim for annulling the fatherhood of her husband on the basis that he is not the biological father, the court would refuse to do so, unless she can prove that she had a good reason for missing the deadline. I suppose she could spin a yarn that she had no idea who the father was and only recently found out herself, but the burden of proof would be on her.

And the bio father? Does he have no rights or obligations?

Same as everyone else it would seem: if he finds out he's the biological father, he can sue to be recognize as the legal father, but he has to do so on short order (he can't keep it as an ace up his sleeve to extort the legal parents for years), and his request may not automatically granted by the courts since they may consider that the child's interests are better served by continuity.

 

[Metaphor]

Not quite. After the time limit, she can't choose either. If a woman were to file a claim for annulling the fatherhood of her husband on the basis that he is not the biological father, the court would refuse to do so, unless she can prove that she had a good reason for missing the deadline. I suppose she could spin a yarn that she had no idea who the father was and only recently found out herself, but the burden of proof would be on her.

And the bio father? Does he have no rights or obligations?

Same as everyone else it would seem: if he finds out he's the biological father, he can sue to be recognize as the legal father, but he has to do so on short order (he can't keep it as an ace up his sleeve to extort the legal parents for years), and his request may not automatically granted by the courts since they may consider that the child's interests are better served by continuity.

I don't mean what the Finnish legal system would do.

I mean to ask the people on this thread what rights and obligations they think the bio father ought have in a situation like this.

 

[Jokodo]

Same as everyone else it would seem: if he finds out he's the biological father, he can sue to be recognize as the legal father, but he has to do so on short order (he can't keep it as an ace up his sleeve to extort the legal parents for years), and his request may not automatically granted by the courts since they may consider that the child's interests are better served by continuity.

I don't mean what the Finnish legal system would do.

I mean to ask the people on this thread what rights and obligations they think the bio father ought have in a situation like this.

It doesn't seem far off the mark, does it to you?

 

[Jayjay]

Not quite. After the time limit, she can't choose either. If a woman were to file a claim for annulling the fatherhood of her husband on the basis that he is not the biological father, the court would refuse to do so, unless she can prove that she had a good reason for missing the deadline. I suppose she could spin a yarn that she had no idea who the father was and only recently found out herself, but the burden of proof would be on her.

And the bio father? Does he have no rights or obligations?

If either (legal) parent objects, he can't do much. As for obligations, they are tied to legal parenthood. Which is how it should be.