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

[fromderinside]

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.

Generally the man is responsible for the success or failure of a marriage. He should have known this wife was a tart and taken precautions to prevent such as affairs and births from semen of another man. Since he hadn't shown all due diligence he is also liable (responsible) for alimony and child support when she sued him for divorce.

I'm not going to say the man is either a brute or cruel since that wasn't mentioned in OP, nor was anything about responsibilities of women for that matter.

 

[Metaphor]

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 do not believe that I should jettison a figurative subtitle that I like simply because some people use it as a cudgel to avoid engaging with the substance of the post. Such people are not interested in engaging with the substance.

My first response highlighted the Finnish law and court ruling that led to what appears to be an unjust outcome,

It did not. You did not indicate in any way you thought it was unjust, nor did you acknowledge that the philosophical premise behind the law might be faulty.

and that Progressives are calling for change.

How did you first post indicate anything of the kind?

The stumbling block is the two year time limit to challenge paternity. It's arbitrary, unnecessary, and presents an obstacle to a just and fair outcome for people in situations like the one described in the OP.

This 'stumbling block' is part of the philosophy of the law. The law was not fashioned with any interest in protecting cuckolded men. If it were, the time limit would not have been written into the law in the first place.

 

[Arctish]

I do not believe that I should jettison a figurative subtitle that I like simply because some people use it as a cudgel to avoid engaging with the substance of the post. Such people are not interested in engaging with the substance.

I'm not using it as a cudgel and I'm not avoiding engaging with the substance. I'm asking why you use that phrase to describe things that aren't actually indicative of the death of Europe or likely to cause its death.

If the answer is you're using it for dramatic effect, then it's just the verbal equivalent of a parsley sprig and I can ignore it.

It did not. You did not indicate in any way you thought it was unjust, nor did you acknowledge that the philosophical premise behind the law might be faulty.

and that Progressives are calling for change.

How did you first post indicate anything of the kind?

I put it right in the post title: This week in the on-going life of Europe: arbitrary deadline results in injustice, Progressives demand change.

Then I quoted this part of the article:

... 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'll admit, I'm assuming they're Progressives but I believe their actions justify the assumption.

The stumbling block is the two year time limit to challenge paternity. It's arbitrary, unnecessary, and presents an obstacle to a just and fair outcome for people in situations like the one described in the OP.

This 'stumbling block' is part of the philosophy of the law. The law was not fashioned with any interest in protecting cuckolded men. If it were, the time limit would not have been written into the law in the first place.

I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not using it as a cudgel and I'm not avoiding engaging with the substance. I'm asking why you use that phrase to describe things that aren't actually indicative of the death of Europe or likely to cause its death.

I've explained my use of it.

If the answer is you're using it for dramatic effect, then it's just the verbal equivalent of a parsley sprig and I can ignore it.

Well, of course it's for dramatic effect, but that doesn't mean it's empty.

I put it right in the post title: This week in the on-going life of Europe: arbitrary deadline results in injustice, Progressives demand change.

I missed that you'd titled your response. I rarely use the feature myself.

I'll admit, I'm assuming they're Progressives but I believe their actions justify the assumption.

I'm not sure what you mean by a capital-p "Progressive".

I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

Whether that is true or not, that does not address my assertion.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

In this case, the article was mistranslated, as it was about child support only. Alimony to support an ex-spouse is rare, and always limited in time.

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.

Correct. The two-year time limit to annul the parenthood is the crux of the issue. In this case, at least the guy had the opportunity to meet the deadline. If the woman had kept the secret six months longer, then the annulment wouldn't even be an option and he would have been stuck with the child support payments anyway.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here in my state if I am in a legal marriage and the children end up not being biologically mine, I must still pay child support. There are good reasons for this. Firstly the children get the financial support they need. Secondly it makes me smarter.

Across the border in Ohio I get to walk away from child support.

My state is dying.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Across the border in Ohio I get to walk away from child support.

Papa gots to have his lottery tickets.

 

[ruby sparks]

I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

He doesn't have to. Because, you know, he's found another piece of anecdotal evidence.

In this particular case, from what we know, it seems unfair to the father. I think we can all agree on that. And the mother seems, I think, especially blameworthy for seeking money from him for the child, because of the particular circumstances. But we do actually know very little about the case.

More generally, I myself am hardly familiar at all with Finnish politics, but I do remember reading earlier this year on the BBC News online that the Finnish government put (or were about to put) fathers on a fully equal footing with mothers as regards paid parental leave allowances. So, as I understand it, it took what I believe was a women-led, centre-left coalition government to do that. Unless I'm wrong about that (and Jayjay may correct me), I'm not particularly convinced about the supposed 'death' in question.

 

[Jarhyn]

which apparently it chooses to supplement with alimony and child support. perhaps you should move there and try to enact governmental reform.


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.

I will correct you here. Some people care because of the bias in how these stories are posted, usually with enough spin that it makes me wonder if it's enough that if we shot them to the moon, if we could seismically reignite the damn thing.

Whenever "the local cabal" posts here, all I can imagine is Sadam Hussein's south park depiction and the character's classic dissembling routine, and maybe the scene from the movie where he was all "I can change, oh, look, I'm changing, ok now I'm totally different!"

 

[Metaphor]

He doesn't have to. Because, you know, he's found another piece of anecdotal evidence.

I don't have to know anything about Finnish law other than what is revealed by this story: that a man who is not the biological father of a child can nevertheless be compelled to pay for that child.

In this particular case, from what we know, it seems unfair to the father. I think we can all agree on that.

Really? TGG Moogly who posted above you doesn't seem to think that.

And the mother seems, I think, especially blameworthy for seeking money from him for the child, because of the particular circumstances. But we do actually know very little about the case.

More generally, I myself am hardly familiar at all with Finnish politics, but I do remember reading earlier this year on the BBC News online that the Finnish government put (or were about to put) fathers on a fully equal footing with mothers as regards paid parental leave allowances. So, as I understand it, it took what I believe was a women-led, centre-left coalition government to do that. Unless I'm wrong about that (and Jayjay may correct me), I'm not particularly convinced about the supposed 'death' in question.

What would this thing that you're not sure about but you thought you'd bring it up anyway, have to do with the OP?

 

[Jarhyn]

I doubt you know anything about the history of Finnish law, much less anything about the status of women and children in Finnish society at the time that law was written.

He doesn't have to. Because, you know, he's found another piece of anecdotal evidence.

In this particular case, from what we know, it seems unfair to the father. I think we can all agree on that. And the mother seems, I think, especially blameworthy for seeking money from him for the child, because of the particular circumstances. But we do actually know very little about the case.

More generally, I myself am hardly familiar at all with Finnish politics, but I do remember reading earlier this year on the BBC News online that the Finnish government put (or were about to put) fathers on a fully equal footing with mothers as regards paid parental leave allowances. So, as I understand it, it took what I believe was a women-led, centre-left coalition government to do that. Unless I'm wrong about that (and Jayjay may correct me), I'm not particularly convinced about the supposed 'death' in question.

One thing to mention here is that this idiot seems so concerned with genetics that he is throwing away his best chance to pass on everything that is him but is not genetic. Like, just flushing it all down the toilet.

I mean here I am spinning up the finances to adopt a child that shares neither the DNA of myself nor my husband, on top of paying everything it costs to raise said child and you can be damn sure I think if I were to divorce my husband after that, that I should owe him, as the primary earner in the house, some money to care for said child.

I don't see why this should be different.

 

[Metaphor]

Here in my state if I am in a legal marriage and the children end up not being biologically mine, I must still pay child support. There are good reasons for this. Firstly the children get the financial support they need. Secondly it makes me smarter.

It doesn't make you smarter. It makes you a literal cuckold.

Across the border in Ohio I get to walk away from child support.

Then across the border, in a state where cuckolded men are not forced by the State to pay for children that are not their own, there is less injustice in that respect.

My state is dying.

You can always move to Ohio.

 

[Metaphor]

One thing to mention here is that this idiot seems so concerned with genetics that he is throwing away his best chance to pass on everything that is him but is not genetic.

You don't know that he is doing anything of the sort. You don't know his age or his future fathering chances, nor indeed might he feel the inherently selfish desire to 'pass on' 'everything that is him', as you clearly do. Nor is he an 'idiot' for having feelings that you do not have.

Like, just flushing it all down the toilet.

I mean here I am spinning up the finances to adopt a child that shares neither the DNA of myself nor my husband, on top of paying everything it costs to raise said child and you can be damn sure I think if I were to divorce my husband after that, that I should owe him, as the primary earner in the house, some money to care for said child.

I don't see why this should be different.

Then your critical thinking skills and imagination are shockingly poor.

Your situation is different in almost every conceivable aspect. You are voluntarily taking on the adoption of a child you know not to be yours biologically, with no deceptions to you and you are, presumably, of mind sound enough to make that decision.

Some men--as inconceivable as it may seem to you--enter into monogamous heterosexual marriages with women, and with the understanding that any offspring produced would be produced by that union.

 

[Jayjay]

Some men--as inconceivable as it may seem to you--enter into monogamous heterosexual marriages with women, and with the understanding that any offspring produced would be produced by that union.

If they do that in Finland, they should be aware of the law. And that it puts more weight on stability of the relationship than genetics. I don't think that the time limit of just two years is fair though. It's hardly enough time to form a bond with a child that will probably not even remember you, if the mother decides to elope.

 

[Toni]

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.

It’s favoring the child, who does not deserve to lose the only father they know. The man has been a father to the child for two years. That’s not something you can just erase because you get angry.

 

[Elixir]

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?

Of course not. The women are to suffer in silence, as the man's love-child payments come out of the household budget. She might otherwise have been able to afford a maid.
He probably should have stuck with hookers, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

Some men--as inconceivable as it may seem to you--enter into monogamous heterosexual marriages with women, and with the understanding that any offspring produced would be produced by that union.

If they do that in Finland, they should be aware of the law. And that it puts more weight on stability of the relationship than genetics. I don't think that the time limit of just two years is fair though. It's hardly enough time to form a bond with a child that will probably not even remember you, if the mother decides to elope.

The thing is, two years is more than enough time to have a paternity test done.

Personally, I am in a (mostly) monogamous marriage with a human capable of hosting a pregnancy. If offspring are produced, that's great. It's more of a bill I can make insurance foot rather than having to shell out for lawyers to adopt.

But my genetics are the least important part of what I hope to pass on. I have lived a life, and I would see at the very least that some other human finds themselves somewhere on a road with the path to whatever enlightenment I may have found already well marked out for them to explore and perhaps completely ignore on their way towards the future. Genetics didn't walk that road and didn't mark the path, that was the product of a lot of work, teaching, and existential crisis. In fact, the most important thesis I wish to pass onto others is the capability of anyone to walk such a path given time and effort and a bare minimum of ability. That's more difficult to establish, especially if my children are "just like me".

If you can't commit to being a father, if you care more about being a sperm donor, then go donate some sperm instead.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This. /\
My kids tell my jokes. Throw things at me for my puns. Come to md with questions. Cook, launder, clean the way we taught them. I kniw the names of most of their stuffed animals. If there's a car accident tomorrow that leads to blood donation and discovery that they're not related to me, they're certainly no less my kids.

Going to be an interesting conversation on the drive home, but still it'll be within the family.

 

[scombrid]

Here in my state if I am in a legal marriage and the children end up not being biologically mine, I must still pay child support. There are good reasons for this. Firstly the children get the financial support they need.

Need or deserve? People need lots of things but it doesn't mean that they deserve if from me. If you did not consent or contribute to the creation of the child then why do you owe anything to the child? I can understand the rational behind the Finnish law or any similar law that says that if you have acted in the role of provider for some time then you are obligated to continue that support. However, I also think that if one partner in the relationship goes out and gets kids by any means to which the other partner didn't consent then the non-consenting partner should have the right to sever contract and leave the other partner to deal on their own.

 

[Toni]

This. /\
My kids tell my jokes. Throw things at me for my puns. Come to md with questions. Cook, launder, clean the way we taught them. I kniw the names of most of their stuffed animals. If there's a car accident tomorrow that leads to blood donation and discovery that they're not related to me, they're certainly no less my kids.

Going to be an interesting conversation on the drive home, but still it'll be within the family.

^^this^^ This is parenthood.