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]

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

Damn, Europe sure has been dying a lot lately. They should rename it Kenny.

 

[prideandfall]

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]

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]

Damn, Europe sure has been dying a lot lately. They should rename it Kenny.

Thank you for your thoughtful and substantive response.

 

[ZiprHead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.