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

[Jokodo]

If only there were a way to ensure that they can't threaten him to take him to court over this, to bring him into a she-said-he-said situation where he might end up having to pay if the jury doesn't believe him.

Well, I'd advise Tom to put things in writing. An email is more than sufficient (and an email trail is the best kind of evidence). Nevertheless, it doesn't matter in this case if it's in writing.

Like, I don't know, some kind of rule that says that if the mother's husband continues to act as the father in the full knowledge that he isn't the biological father,

But you just said John and Mary are going to lie about it. Like, they "found out" recently that Tom was the father. If they tell the jury that they knew five years ago, and John continued to be the social father, J&M are outing themselves as liars.

Why? You've said you don't think time limits make sense in a scenario like this, so they don't have to claim anything of the sort. They can say they knew five years ago and didn't feel like, or get around to, doing anything about it - just like the guy in the OP knew half a year before filing for the nullification of his paternity.

If John and Mary are going to tell the jury they just found out, Tom can say he wants a financial abortion (because he, too, must have just found out). That's it. Tom didn't consent to being a social father.

That's a new addition. Initially when you posted your sketch of a rule set, you didn't include anything about a "financial abortion" - you even explicitly said you wanted the bio-dad on the hook and stalked posters to agree or disagree that he should be held responsible.

Can you provide one set of rules that produces at least as good outcomes as the current Finnish system averaged over all cases, or is it a new set of rules for every new case?

 

[TomC]

The law is stupid in this case.

My point is that you are fine with sticking innocents with the bill.

But the taxpayers have, collectively, agreed to provide support for a child who's parents aren't able for some reason. This child appears to have three adults sharing the responsibility.

Maybe bio-dad is quietly and voluntarily providing support. That wouldn't be in the public record. But the mother wants more because her embezzlement makes it impossible to get the sort of employment she's accustomed to. She doesn't seem to have many scruples when it comes to latching on to other people's money. So she used a technicality to stick her jilted husband for an extra €50K.
This matches such facts as are known as well as any other speculation I've seen.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The law is stupid in this case.

My point is that you are fine with sticking innocents with the bill.

But the taxpayers have, collectively, agreed to provide support for a child who's parents aren't able for some reason. This child appears to have three adults sharing the responsibility.

But the parents can support this child in this case. Did taxpayers collectively agree to support deadbeats?

 

[ruby sparks]

But the mother wants more because her embezzlement makes it impossible to get the sort of employment she's accustomed to. She doesn't seem to have many scruples when it comes to latching on to other people's money. So she used a technicality to stick her jilted husband for an extra €50K.

Plus, she has to pay back the embezzled money, apparently (it's a condition of the suspended sentence).

 

[TomC]

But the taxpayers have, collectively, agreed to provide support for a child who's parents aren't able for some reason. This child appears to have three adults sharing the responsibility.

But the parents can support this child in this case. Did taxpayers collectively agree to support deadbeats?

Who said anything about taxpayer support in this particular incident?
Other circumstances, sure. But not here, for the reasons laid out.
Tom

 

[Gun Nut]

The man had 2 years to discover that it was not his biological kid and leverage the law to step out of having responsibility for it.
He missed the deadline by a matter of a few months.

 

[Jokodo]

The man had 2 years to discover that it was not his biological kid and leverage the law to step out of having responsibility for it.
He missed the deadline by a matter of a few months.

Actually that doesn't seem to be the problem. There appears to be an additional provision in the law that the deadline can be extended under exceptional circumstances, and newly discovering that the child isn't yours certainly is an exceptional circumstance. His problem is mostly that he continued to act as a father and waited half a year after finding out before filing for nullification of his fatherhood, which the court took to signal a implicit expression of his wish to continue being the child's father - and they wouldn't let him change his mind half a year later.

 

[TomC]

At the time, he was 5, so that's about slightly less than 13 years.

So, she waited 3 years to file a child support claim?

Honestly, the facts here are extremely confusing. Did she wait until after she'd been convicted of embezzlement and required to pay the money back or face jail time? Is she just using a technicality to make the man she cheated on and then dumped pay for her criminal activity?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

At the time, he was 5, so that's about slightly less than 13 years.

So, she waited 3 years to file a child support claim?

Honestly, the facts here are extremely confusing. Did she wait until after she'd been convicted of embezzlement and required to pay the money back or face jail time? Is she just using a technicality to make the man she cheated on and then dumped pay for her criminal activity?
Tom

It is possible that this man was paying child support and then stopped - hence the filing. But I do agree - this is a very confusing situation.

 

[TomC]

The man had 2 years to discover that it was not his biological kid and leverage the law to step out of having responsibility for it.
He missed the deadline by a matter of a few months.

Actually that doesn't seem to be the problem. There appears to be an additional provision in the law that the deadline can be extended under exceptional circumstances, and newly discovering that the child isn't yours certainly is an exceptional circumstance. His problem is mostly that he continued to act as a father and waited half a year after finding out before filing for nullification of his fatherhood, which the court took to signal a implicit expression of his wish to continue being the child's father - and they wouldn't let him change his mind half a year later.

Why not let the man and the child who called him "Daddy" continue their relationship, while expecting the child's bio-parents to provide the needs? Things like housing and food and clothes and such are rightfully the people who conceived the child responsibility. The slut kept her lies going long enough to owe them both continuity of relationship.
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

Why not let the man and the child who called him "Daddy" continue their relationship, while expecting the child's bio-parents to provide the needs? Things like housing and food and clothes and such are rightfully the people who conceived the child responsibility. The slut kept her lies going long enough to owe them both continuity of relationship.
Tom

Imo, it's a pity you used the word slut there. Otherwise, I might have largely agreed with what you've been posting. She was dishonest, yes, and possibly a few other things.

 

[Jayjay]

At the time, he was 5, so that's about slightly less than 13 years.

So, she waited 3 years to file a child support claim?

Yes. But I have to correct myself, apparently she filed for sole custody and child support in March 2019. So that would mean slightly more than 13 years, not less.

Honestly, the facts here are extremely confusing. Did she wait until after she'd been convicted of embezzlement and required to pay the money back or face jail time? Is she just using a technicality to make the man she cheated on and then dumped pay for her criminal activity?
Tom

I don't know the details of the embezzlement case. It apparently happened after the couple had split up though. I personally don't think it relates to the custody and child support case, except as an insight to her moral character.

As for the timing, if I can piece together the events correctly, the man managed to get the police to investigate her cheating as fraud, and that went to court. The court decided that there was no fraud because there was no intent to get financial benefit. The case was closed in early 2019, so she filed the child support claim only a few months afterwards. Maybe she didn't think it would look good if she asked for child support during an open case against her. Or maybe she got the idea from the man's accusation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The law is stupid in this case.

My point is that you are fine with sticking innocents with the bill.

That's what a welfare system is!

Are you saying you want welfare abolished?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It wouldn't be fair to the child, if a father who "never consented" can walk away from a relationship any time he wants with no obligations. Suppose the couple stays together for 5 years, and then divorce. Woman files for child support, and the man responds by filing for annulment. The end result is that a biological father who never knew the child is now suddenly on the hook for the child support payments. I don't see how that is fair either.

What's unfair about the real father being on the hook? Just because he didn't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not let the man and the child who called him "Daddy" continue their relationship, while expecting the child's bio-parents to provide the needs? Things like housing and food and clothes and such are rightfully the people who conceived the child responsibility. The slut kept her lies going long enough to owe them both continuity of relationship.
Tom

Imo, it's a pity you used the word slut there. Otherwise, I might have largely agreed with what you've been posting. She was dishonest, yes, and possibly a few other things.

Note that it's not an uncommon definition of "slut" to refer to irresponsible sexuality. And I would consider having a child in an affair to be irresponsible.

 

[ruby sparks]

Note that it's not an uncommon definition of "slut" to refer to irresponsible sexuality. And I would consider having a child in an affair to be irresponsible.

Hm. Not convinced that's not an uncommon definition. I've tried the first 8 regular dictionaries google threw up, the Urban Dictionary, and wiki. And I've not personally heard of that definition before.

 

[Metaphor]

That's a new addition. Initially when you posted your sketch of a rule set, you didn't include anything about a "financial abortion"

My rule-set was based on the concept of consent. I did not write a family law act that covered every detail about what acts or omissions count as consent or can nullify consent.

- you even explicitly said you wanted the bio-dad on the hook and stalked posters to agree or disagree that he should be held responsible.

In the context of the Finnish law, I said he was the more obvious candidate to be on the hook.

Can you provide one set of rules that produces at least as good outcomes as the current Finnish system averaged over all cases, or is it a new set of rules for every new case?

It is one set of rules. I am not writing a family law act to appease what appears to be your crusade to prove the Finnish law is the best of all universes. I also doubt we could come to a consensus as to what counts as a good outcome versus the Finnish law, and how to weight the average of "all" cases. I also don't know enough about the Finnish family law to properly determine how cases other than the OP would turn out.

My system would rarely, but sometimes mean no person, other than the birth mother, would be 'on the hook' for child support. I suspect some people in the thread would count that as a worse outcome than the Finnish law, which puts someone on the hook, even if that person didn't consent to being a parent.

 

[TomC]

Why not let the man and the child who called him "Daddy" continue their relationship, while expecting the child's bio-parents to provide the needs? Things like housing and food and clothes and such are rightfully the people who conceived the child responsibility. The slut kept her lies going long enough to owe them both continuity of relationship.
Tom

Imo, it's a pity you used the word slut there Tom. Otherwise, I might have largely agreed with what you've been posting. Dishonest, yes, and possibly a few other things.

Why is it a pity to use the word slut to describe a woman who cheated on her husband, passed off her slutty boyfriend's child as her husband's responsibility, then filed for divorce and sole custody, then used a technicality to stick him for €50K?

Don't get me wrong, I'm every bit as judgemental about men who behave as badly as that woman did. I'm really quite a prude when it comes to procreation. And I realize that the English language doesn't have words that convey that disgust concerning men. She's a slut. He's a stud. I dislike that aspect of English, but I'm not in charge of standard usage.
Tom

 

[Toni]

It wouldn't be fair to the child, if a father who "never consented" can walk away from a relationship any time he wants with no obligations. Suppose the couple stays together for 5 years, and then divorce. Woman files for child support, and the man responds by filing for annulment. The end result is that a biological father who never knew the child is now suddenly on the hook for the child support payments. I don't see how that is fair either.

What's unfair about the real father being on the hook? Just because he didn't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You mean: sperm donor. The real father is the woman’s husband.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why is it a pity to use the word slut to describe a woman who cheated on her husband, passed off her slutty boyfriend's child as her husband's responsibility, then filed for divorce and sole custody, then used a technicality to stick him for €50K?

Don't get me wrong, I'm every bit as judgemental about men who behave as badly as that woman did. I'm really quite a prude when it comes to procreation. And I realize that the English language doesn't have words that convey that disgust concerning men. She's a slut. He's a stud. I dislike that aspect of English, but I'm not in charge of standard usage.
Tom

I think 'slut' is by now fairly commonly used to refer to men as well as women (though still mostly used against women). That said I think it carries unnecessary baggage, imo (that 'stud' doesn't). Personally, I think it's a bit unwarranted to call either of them sluts just on the basis of having an affair outside their marriages. It's really just my personal opinion though. Affairs can happen for all sorts of reasons. Typically, needs (emotional or physical) aren't being met or are not being perceived to be met in the marriage. I'm not saying that's the case here, for either her or her lover. Imo, affairs are wrong, but not slutty. Perhaps if someone had several lovers.....but then I'd prefer the more neutral promiscuous. I accept that to some extent, it's partly just me, and partly what baggage such words can have.