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

[Derec]

No need to think things through - a man was treated unfairly, ultimately by a woman, so the "WAAAAH" machine gets turned on.

More like, so the feminists rejoice and claim that such unfair treatment is ultimately just because the victim is only a man. That's the sexist attitude you, Toni and a few others are exhibiting here.

 

[Derec]

We have no evidence she knew who the father of her child was before the child was born.

And if she did not know who the father was for sure, she should not have pretended it was her husband whom she cheated on.

You are assuming she knew when in fact she might have been unable to tell which one it was or sincerely believed it was her husband. Suppose she had sex with her husband 40 weeks before she gave birth and sex with her lover 38 weeks before giving birth. Best guess is the child is her husband's, but babies can be born a couple of weeks early, so

She knew she fucked other men. So she knew there was the strong possibility one of these men was the father. It's not rocket science and the logical pretzels you and Toni twist yourselves into in order to give this cheating slut a pass is mind-boggling.
Apparently, if a man cheats he is blameworthy, but if a woman cheats she is not and should be rewarded for it by forcing her victim to pay her money. That's typical misandrist feminism!

It's not unreasonable to think she might have. But it is unreasonable to assume she did.

She fucked other guys. So she damn well knew that there was a strong possibility that her husband wasn't the real father.

We don't know what she knew about who impregnated her, and there's no particular reason to assume the worst. It may be that she really did knowingly lie to the guy in the OP. Or it may be she didn't know he wasn't the father until the child started to grow and a resemblance to her lover became apparent. Without evidence to sway us in one direction or the other, what accounts for people being swayed to the conclusion that she acted in bad faith? Is it a need to blame someone for a bad outcome? Or is it belief in Biblical notions about a woman's fundamental character?

She acted in bad faith by
a) cheating on her husband. That is inherently bad faith unless they are in an open relationship, which they were not in this case.
b) pretending her husband was the father when she knew damn well that he might not be.

 

[Derec]

You have not demonstrated that whatever it is you're proposing fairs better than current Finnish law in minimising the number of cases with intuitively unjust outcomes.

It is pretty obvious that in this case the courts effected a very unjust outcome that punishes a victim of fraud and rewards the perpetrator. In fact, it makes the Finnish state accessory to fraud after the fact.

Obviously a court system that makes the state party to fraud is not a good system.

 

[Derec]

He did not insist on a paternity test during pregnancy or shortly after birth.

So you think men should be forced to pay for other people's children unless they "insist on a paternity test during pregnancy or shortly after birth"?
No responsibility at all on the mother to be truthful at all? All responsibility on the man (you are a typical feminist after all!) who may not have any inclination that his wife is a cheating slut and thus thinks he has no reason to insist on a paternity test? Not to mention that most women would be very offended if their husband demanded a paternity test for a child.

He acted as the child's father. That's consent.

Not if the apparent consent was obtained by fraud. Which in this case it was.

Of course he did.

No, he obviously did not!

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.

There is no indication in the article he knew of the paternity or even of the affair before the time limit elapsed. I think the clock should not start until the victim has the knowledge of fraud. Otherwise it is way too easy for the fraudster to run out the clock, and perhaps even reveal it and rub it in once the clock has safely run out and her victim is on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars for somebody else's child.

 

[Jokodo]

You have not demonstrated that whatever it is you're proposing fairs better than current Finnish law in minimising the number of cases with intuitively unjust outcomes.

It is pretty obvious that in this case the courts effected a very unjust outcome that punishes a victim of fraud and rewards the perpetrator. In fact, it makes the Finnish state accessory to fraud after the fact.

Obviously a court system that makes the state party to fraud is not a good system.

In this case. It's also obvious in other cases, Metaphor's sketch of a system will deliver unjust outcomes.

What's unclear is under which system, the cases where it misdelievers are more frequent, more typical. "Fixing" a law because of one bad outcome without even thinking about bad outcomes the fix might produce is generally a bad idea.

 

[Arctish]

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

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

I would like to see your evidence regarding false rape accusations. Are you using that FBI report that's been cited here a number of times in the past few years? Because it doesn't support that claim at all.


Re: Crystal Magnum: I'm putting this behind HIDE tags because it's a potential derail but I think it needs to be addressed.

Show

You know as well as I do that the responsibility for members of the Duke Lacrosse team being charged with rape lies with District Attorney Mike Nifong, who took the unsupported and ever changing story of a drugged and drunk woman with a documented history of mental health problems, and exploited it for political reasons, an act for which he was removed, disbarred and jailed.

You know Magnum has mental health problems and was intoxicated from mixing beer and prescription drugs. You know the cops who responded to the call about her that night took her straight to a mental-health and substance-abuse facility for involuntary commitment because she was so clearly in need of mental health care. You know Nifong had no evidence to support charging the Duke students but did so anyway and then conspired to hide exculpatory evidence. And you know about the argument between the strippers and the Duke students and the guy with the broomstick who wanted to shove it up inside one or both of them. And yet you keep making the absurd claim that Crystal Magnum knowingly and maliciously accused innocent boys and the poor deluded District Attorney was hoodwinked into going along with her nefarious plot.

Those students were dragged through the mud and had their college careers upended because a man hatched a nefarious plot against them.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

In what way?

If you don't know in what ways by now, I seriously doubt there's much point in me trying to explain it to you.

 

[Metaphor]

In this case. It's also obvious in other cases, Metaphor's sketch of a system will deliver unjust outcomes.

Really? Explain an unjust scenario under the rules I proposed.

 

[Jokodo]

In this case. It's also obvious in other cases, Metaphor's sketch of a system will deliver unjust outcomes.

Really? Explain an unjust scenario under the rules I proposed.

Well since the rules you have proposed remains blissfully vague, that involves some guesswork. That's your problem though, not mine.

That said, I have presented what believe to be such scenarios, you dodged the question every time.

 

[Toni]

No need to think things through - a man was treated unfairly, ultimately by a woman, so the "WAAAAH" machine gets turned on.

More like, so the feminists rejoice and claim that such unfair treatment is ultimately just because the victim is only a man. That's the sexist attitude you, Toni and a few others are exhibiting here.

What a fucking huge load of bullshit.

I've said more than once that the woman behaved badly. We have no idea if the man also cheated or if he also has children outside of the marriage. We know that the wife cheated and the child she bore ultimately was proven not to be her husband's. We don't even know how this information came to be known. We don't know if she, in very good faith, believed the child to be her husband's child or hoped that the child was her husband's or if she knew that leaving her husband for her lover was an impossibility for X reasons and chose to deliberately deceive her husband. We do not know.

What I have said is that the man failed to challenge paternity within the generous 2 year time frame that Finnish law allows and so, by Finnish law, he is legally obligated to act financially as though he were the child's genetic parent and pay support for said child.

The child is more than 2 years old and has already established a child/father relationship with the husband. It is cruel to the child to have the legal father now reject the child because he is justifiably angry with the child's mother and divorced her. I understand the husband's anger and hurt and anguish, even. He has a choice of whether or not to maintain a father/child relationship with the child but Finnish law mandates that he maintain a legal/financial relationship. Personally, I think it is monstrous to reject a child who is proven not to carry your genetic material, particularly when you have already established a relationship with that child and maintained such for over two years.

Now, if the circumstances are different than presented in the article in the OP: The woman abandoned her husband after learning of her pregnancy or soon after and the child never grew up knowing the husband as his father, then the monstrous behavior isn't monstrous and I would go so far as to say that Finnish law is perhaps wrong here. The only uncertainty is that it was more than 2 years before the husband challenged the paternity. Two years is a long time, actually.

At what point can a parent decide to reject a child who is proven to not be their genetically? Before birth: I would agree. The genetic parent reunites with the other genetic parent? Yes. The genetic parent/non-genetic parent raise the child to 2 or 5 or 10 or 17 or whatever age and then the nongenetic parent decides that they've been fooled and reject not only the at fault other parent but the child? That's monstrous. It seems that after a prolonged relationship between false father and child, Finnish law would mandate that the rejecting parent still be responsible for support of the child.

Suppose this: A man has a wife and a mistress on the side. Both women become pregnant around the same time and by a twist of fate, end up in the same hospital delivering at the same time. The husband has told the mistress that he will not leave his wife. She has decided, and he agreed, to place the child for adoption. The wife, meanwhile, has an extremely difficult delivery, delivers by emergency c section and the child is born dead or born with complications and dies a short time later, the wife never having a chance to bond with the child. The husband decides to present his child with his mistress to his wife as the wife's own child and she raises that child to age 2 or whatever age. The truth comes out. The wife...then rejects the child who is not her own? Divorces her husband and refuses to see the child? Refuses to pay support for this child? Also monstrous and also, one would hope, not allowed by Finnish law.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Obviously you are ignorant about the facts, since the man is ordered to pay child support of the equivalent of $380 per month not maintenance or alimony. &24 Euros is aroud $840 at the current exchange. Adding the two yields about $1,220 per month or about $14,640 per year. I don't know about Finland, but that is not much for a two person household to live on in the US.

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

When one posts like one has all the answers, assumes facts not in evidence and quickly disparages opposing viewpoints, that looks like a God complex.

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

It is your basic starting point - that is not prejudice, it is fact-driven conclusion.

 

[laughing dog]

You have not demonstrated that whatever it is you're proposing fairs better than current Finnish law in minimising the number of cases with intuitively unjust outcomes.

It is pretty obvious that in this case the courts effected a very unjust outcome that punishes a victim of fraud and rewards the perpetrator. In fact, it makes the Finnish state accessory to fraud after the fact.

The child is not a perpetrator, so the award of child support does not reward the perpetrator.

 

[ruby sparks]

No need to think things through - a man was treated unfairly, ultimately by a woman, so the "WAAAAH" machine gets turned on.

More like, so the feminists rejoice and claim that such unfair treatment is ultimately just because the victim is only a man. That's the sexist attitude you, Toni and a few others are exhibiting here.

What a fucking huge load of bullshit.

I've said more than once that the woman behaved badly. We have no idea if the man also cheated or if he also has children outside of the marriage. We know that the wife cheated and the child she bore ultimately was proven not to be her husband's. We don't even know how this information came to be known. We don't know if she, in very good faith, believed the child to be her husband's child or hoped that the child was her husband's or if she knew that leaving her husband for her lover was an impossibility for X reasons and chose to deliberately deceive her husband. We do not know.

What I have said is that the man failed to challenge paternity within the generous 2 year time frame that Finnish law allows and so, by Finnish law, he is legally obligated to act financially as though he were the child's genetic parent and pay support for said child.

The child is more than 2 years old and has already established a child/father relationship with the husband. It is cruel to the child to have the legal father now reject the child because he is justifiably angry with the child's mother and divorced her. I understand the husband's anger and hurt and anguish, even. He has a choice of whether or not to maintain a father/child relationship with the child but Finnish law mandates that he maintain a legal/financial relationship. Personally, I think it is monstrous to reject a child who is proven not to carry your genetic material, particularly when you have already established a relationship with that child and maintained such for over two years.

Now, if the circumstances are different than presented in the article in the OP: The woman abandoned her husband after learning of her pregnancy or soon after and the child never grew up knowing the husband as his father, then the monstrous behavior isn't monstrous and I would go so far as to say that Finnish law is perhaps wrong here. The only uncertainty is that it was more than 2 years before the husband challenged the paternity. Two years is a long time, actually.

At what point can a parent decide to reject a child who is proven to not be their genetically? Before birth: I would agree. The genetic parent reunites with the other genetic parent? Yes. The genetic parent/non-genetic parent raise the child to 2 or 5 or 10 or 17 or whatever age and then the nongenetic parent decides that they've been fooled and reject not only the at fault other parent but the child? That's monstrous. It seems that after a prolonged relationship between false father and child, Finnish law would mandate that the rejecting parent still be responsible for support of the child.

Suppose this: A man has a wife and a mistress on the side. Both women become pregnant around the same time and by a twist of fate, end up in the same hospital delivering at the same time. The husband has told the mistress that he will not leave his wife. She has decided, and he agreed, to place the child for adoption. The wife, meanwhile, has an extremely difficult delivery, delivers by emergency c section and the child is born dead or born with complications and dies a short time later, the wife never having a chance to bond with the child. The husband decides to present his child with his mistress to his wife as the wife's own child and she raises that child to age 2 or whatever age. The truth comes out. The wife...then rejects the child who is not her own? Divorces her husband and refuses to see the child? Refuses to pay support for this child? Also monstrous and also, one would hope, not allowed by Finnish law.

It would have helped if you'd at least got the facts as far as we know them right. It was the wife who reportedly instigated divorce proceedings. She also later filed for sole custody. The husband stated that he wanted to continue to see the child. This has all been said in the thread.

 

[laughing dog]

No need to think things through - a man was treated unfairly, ultimately by a woman, so the "WAAAAH" machine gets turned on.

More like, so the feminists rejoice and claim that such unfair treatment is ultimately just because the victim is only a man. That's the sexist attitude you, Toni and a few others are exhibiting here.

I have no idea where you get such delusional ideas. This entire situation is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for the child. It is unfortunate for the man and the woman.

As it is, we don't know all the relevant facts like what kind of relationship existed in the marriage, what kind of overall person are the ex-spouses (we only have a very partial picture), why it took this man missed the deadline, what the incomes of the ex-spouses, what kind of case did he (or his lawyer) make to the judge, and what factors did the judge take into account and which ones did the judge ignore?

There is no good outcome in these situations - only the least bad.

 

[ruby sparks]

....why it took this man missed the deadline....

Apparently he had what were described as PTSD symptoms. He bought the DNA test kit but had trouble actually carrying it out and kept postponing it. Similarly, when the results arrived, he had trouble opening them. His doctors, family and co-workers testified as to his fragile state of mind. He himself says he considered suicide. He also says he was not aware of the deadline.

Apparently he's in his forties and had been married for 10 years before this happened. Works for the state, in some capacity, apparently.

He reportedly last saw the child in September 2016, 9 months after he discovered the affair (and that the child was biologically the wife's lover's) which if true, would suggest he did not wholly reject the child, albeit he says he wanted the truth of the paternity to be reflected in official documents. It seems he did not want to continue to be with the wife, nor she with him. As we know, he contested the payments.

(Gleaned from various places online).

 

[Jayjay]

No need to think things through - a man was treated unfairly, ultimately by a woman, so the "WAAAAH" machine gets turned on.

More like, so the feminists rejoice and claim that such unfair treatment is ultimately just because the victim is only a man. That's the sexist attitude you, Toni and a few others are exhibiting here.

What a fucking huge load of bullshit.

I've said more than once that the woman behaved badly. We have no idea if the man also cheated or if he also has children outside of the marriage. We know that the wife cheated and the child she bore ultimately was proven not to be her husband's. We don't even know how this information came to be known. We don't know if she, in very good faith, believed the child to be her husband's child or hoped that the child was her husband's or if she knew that leaving her husband for her lover was an impossibility for X reasons and chose to deliberately deceive her husband. We do not know.

Allow me to inform you then. The man found out when he read some private messages on his wife's computer (yeah, why would he do so if he didn't suspect that she was cheating though?) and confronted the wife, and just straight up asked her if his son was his own, to which the wife said that he is not. So the wife did know. The lover was a married man with children of his own. The husband who was cheated was later in contact with the lover's wife (ex-wife at that point, I'm not sure when this correspondence took place), and according to her, the cheater-wife had been trying to convince the lover to get together with her. So the cuckolded husband was her second choice of a provider.

But it's not really that important in my opinion what the exact motivations were in this particular case. When discussing if some law is fair in principle, it should work in any situation, or at least be a reasonable compromise.

(My sources: various articles in Finnish press. What should be kept in mind is that they are all from the husband's point of view, because he is the one who is making noise about it in the media. The wife has not come forward or given any interviews as far as I know. The reason why I've been dropping just random tidbits throughout the thread is that I'm learning more as I dig deeper, apologies if that is making it hard to follow.)

 

[laughing dog]

....why it took this man missed the deadline....

Apparently he had what were described as PTSD symptoms. He bought the DNA test kit but had trouble actually carrying it out and kept postponing it. Similarly, when the results arrived, he had trouble opening them. His doctors, family and co-workers testified as to his fragile state of mind. He himself says he considered suicide. He also says he was not aware of the deadline.

Apparently, the testimony about the alleged fragility of his state of mind was either legally irrelevant or unpersuasive. I am surprised he did not have a lawyer handle his legal case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

Responsibility requires something to be responsible for. If he's not the father where's the obligation for him to be responsible for?

Does this extend to other victims of fraud?

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

And the child will be ok without stealing from an unfortunate man. That's what we have welfare systems for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

I would like to see your evidence regarding false rape accusations. Are you using that FBI report that's been cited here a number of times in the past few years? Because it doesn't support that claim at all.

The FBI numbers say nothing about wrongful convictions. It's a crime for which a wrongful conviction will almost never be exposed, we do not know how many there are!

Re: Crystal Magnum: I'm putting this behind HIDE tags because it's a potential derail but I think it needs to be addressed.

Show

You know as well as I do that the responsibility for members of the Duke Lacrosse team being charged with rape lies with District Attorney Mike Nifong, who took the unsupported and ever changing story of a drugged and drunk woman with a documented history of mental health problems, and exploited it for political reasons, an act for which he was removed, disbarred and jailed.

You know Magnum has mental health problems and was intoxicated from mixing beer and prescription drugs. You know the cops who responded to the call about her that night took her straight to a mental-health and substance-abuse facility for involuntary commitment because she was so clearly in need of mental health care. You know Nifong had no evidence to support charging the Duke students but did so anyway and then conspired to hide exculpatory evidence. And you know about the argument between the strippers and the Duke students and the guy with the broomstick who wanted to shove it up inside one or both of them. And yet you keep making the absurd claim that Crystal Magnum knowingly and maliciously accused innocent boys and the poor deluded District Attorney was hoodwinked into going along with her nefarious plot.

Those students were dragged through the mud and had their college careers upended because a man hatched a nefarious plot against them.

It was a woman who made the nefarious claims. It was a man who went with them for political reasons. She bears greater guilt than he does.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have not demonstrated that whatever it is you're proposing fairs better than current Finnish law in minimising the number of cases with intuitively unjust outcomes.

It is pretty obvious that in this case the courts effected a very unjust outcome that punishes a victim of fraud and rewards the perpetrator. In fact, it makes the Finnish state accessory to fraud after the fact.

The child is not a perpetrator, so the award of child support does not reward the perpetrator.

The woman is the perpetrator and she's rewarded by money that she now doesn't have to earn.