Faith lost in family court: Man ordered by court to pay alimony to cheating wife

You know, I always thought myself as somewhat of an advocate for women's rights. I've held this strong belief that woman are greatly disadvantaged in society. SHE is the one that will have to carry labor and pain for 9 months with the child. SHE is the one that will suffer in the financial world most when SHTF. SHE is the weaker sex of the two, and therefore vulnerable. This has ALWAYS been my thought process before the various laws handing out special protections... and then I see this utter nonsense, and my world shatters.

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 man had argued that the fact that he only had found out later and was shocked by the divorce and emotional distress of the revelation. The court had not seen these reasons as significant enough.

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

Source

A bud recently told me this case after a heated discussion. Likewise, I take what he says with a grain of salt given the types of misinformation out there on these matters however I was shocked to read about this case. It's been going on for years and this recent news is 4 days old following an appeal.

First off, what's the justification? All the court seems to stand on is the fact that this child grew up knowing him and that's it. The circumstances are within REASON. How on Earth can they get it so wrong? Finland is known for one of the most liberally minded and protectionist states in the world, yet this working man is being ripped to shreds for NO reason?

How do countries expect future families when this happens? This right here is cause for a breakdown in society. Honest harding working me like me will be bailing out in droves if this becomes the norm in the near future. I can promise you that. I'm scared to even look at similar cases in the US. Too close to home. Too afraid to get caught up again in something that will chain me for a life of servitude.

Two ways to look at it one way would be if he was deceived and the other way is not my child I'm not paying.

It's sad to say but I don't know the whole story behind it but it'd be a hard decision to make in life one way or the other.
but if anger sets in and hate sets in it would be definitely a very easy decision what way to go.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Did you even read it?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Because she cheated, does that mean he somehow isn’t the biological father and has zero responsibility for his offspring?

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.

He's not the biological father. Read the OP.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: TerryDon79
Did you even read it?

No. My bad.

I actually thought it was a similar story I heard recently where the man WAS the biological father.

That's messed up. It happens here as well, morning radio is littered with these stories.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Maybe he could sue her for fraud? Sue her for enough to cover the alimony payments.

While he's at it, sue her for conspiracy to commit fraud and name the judge and her attorney as co-conspirators.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Women own the family courts.
The male patriarchy is a myth.


Women also file for divorce 80% of the time.

There is a reason that so many men are not attaching themselves to women.
To many parasites so they choose the pump and dump philosophy.

ETA.. European countries are the worst when it comes to this type of story.

a reply to: Southern Guardian



Clearly the law has been bastardized and must be corrected ASAP.

We did not have 24 hour Paternity testing when the law was written and the intentions of the law have since been bastardized the same ways they have been poisoned in other Countries.

Before 24 hour Paternity testing 2 years from birth was a reasonable length of time to file a grievance.....they had no way to prove anything beyond that time anyways, however today we can PROVE PARENTAGE ten years after birth or 90 years after birth....so the Judge MUST accept this and MUST change their interpretation and application of the Law....MUST....not should....the only alternative is to declare the law non-applicable and re-write a new one.

The INTENTION of the original law was to protect the child not either Parent....that INTENTION must remain in focus....and the solution is simple....2 years from date of knowledge that Paternity is not a Mans.....not 2 years from birth.......the INTENTION of the Law can still be fulfilled without changing it completely if the Judge pulls their head out of their arse and appplies the logic they are picked and paid to use.

I heard this in radio in here Finland. And this is SOO WRONG !!
What they say this child´s real father is wife´s EX husband and she remarried him again ( what i get is that man is biological father she remarried ). The guy who tried to get things right is beaten by the system and abused by ex wife and his current husband to pay their childs alimony.
It is more like revenge .

Wow. A topic we can agree on!👍

a reply to: Southern Guardian

It's an ugly ugly ugly story all around. No one wins -- especially not the child, whose best interests SHOULD be the focus of everyone involved. ALL of the adults suck in this situation. We don't know what the non-bio daddy knew or when he knew it. For all we know, he might have known there was a chance the child was not his and promised to accept it anyway, then walked out on the child when something went south and demanded paternity tests.

I'm confused about why the child is invoked though, since this is about alimony rather than child support. But maybe that's a distinction here that is not made there.

In any event, I sure feel for the child.

a reply to: Bluntone22

There is a reason that so many men are not attaching themselves to women. To many parasites so they choose the pump and dump philosophy.

I can sure understand that.... the parasites seldom announce themselves as such and give fair warning. I know I don't want to be part of today's dating scene!!!

But I sure hope these guys are getting themselves snipped first. There's already far too many unwanted pregnancies. And unlike women, who can only be impregnated a few days a month, most men can impregnate a woman each and every day.

Maybe the West should just convert to Islam, supposedly they really know how to handle multiple woman at a time.
Ont. Business man pays 50k despite no children or marriage
I heard their divorce process is pretty fast, all the while very low. Hell, all the men should mass migrate to the Middle East or Asia.

Mexico also great during the fall...maybe that what caused all those companies to go over there probably causing the 08 recession.

Why is the parentage of the child a consideration for the alimony? Child support I can see...
But, with alimony, you are deciding weather the women should receive funding from the husband to help maintain her. While the children, and that burden should be a consideration, it is only in how those children have affected the womens ability to establish herself in a stable career. If the husband insisted she stay out of the workforce, failed to support her in her decision to enter into the workforce, then ya, alimony would be appropriate regardless of weather children are involved or who fathered them. But, if, on the other hand, he did support her in her move into the workforce, helped with childcare, household duties, ect, and she has established herself in a stable career that provides an adequate salary to support herself... then there is just the matter of child support to contend with.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Family court is notoriously messed up. It's pretty much business as usual to see cases like this. In fact this is one of the least egregious cases that has been in the news in recent years.

It's almost always a decision in the mother's favor, father's rights are almost non existent in most cases.

It's entirely possibly for a woman to trick a man into getting her pregnant by skipping out on her birth control or sabotaging other means of contraception (Or simply lying about using it), and then riding the man for child support for the next 18 years for a baby that he didn't want to father.

If a man lies about having a vasectomy in order to get a woman pregnant this can be construed as rape in many places, or assault in other.

Some places in the states give you like 90 days to contest otherwise thats it your on the hook for 18 years no matter what the outcome.

It takes a qaulity of lawyer that most regular folks could never afford to have a chance... just a chance to get justice in the family courts.

There's an old saying that fair isn't a four letter word used in family court.

Yeah, this law was written prior to DNA so men couldn't bring up all sorts of accusations to get out of child support.
But I can see a real reason why this law is written and in a way it could help men

After two years a child is bonded to the adults in his life. Regardless of DNA, most adults feel the child is theirs and most children feel the adult is their parent.

Everyone is focusing on child support but I assume this law also gives the father visitation rights regardless of the DNA?
Hopefully, the man would be heartbroken if he raised a child for years and suddenly could never see the child again.

So this case might be a bad application of the law but in some cases I could really see it helping a man if he becomes bonded with the child.

IMO, two things I think are #ty and should be done away with :

Child support orders should be dissolved if you are NOT the biological father and/or do not want to adopt the cheating ho's known Not Yours offspring as your own. This is very cut and dried for me here, you should not be forced to be responsible for what is not yours. Especially if, in this case, the real dad is the new husband ANYWAY.

Second is alimony. GET RID OF IT. No one, and I mean no one short of someone with a pre-nup is entitled to the ex footing the bill for their living. AT ALL. I cannot believe this is even a thing, what kind of person keeps digging into an ex-spouse's wallet because they can? WTH kind if #ed up morality is that? Sorry, but if you don't want to walk the marriage walk, you forfeit all benefits. Including being "kept" in any manner.

That's my take as a woman. It'd be damn nice if instead of groveling SJW white knighters, we had some eager beaver supporters who actually thought the ramifications of crap through before backing Girl Worship fully, because there's a very seedy, conniving underbelly to it. We have plenty of entitlements. We do not need more. Even the playing field, and remove some.