Posted on 10/20/2020 8:18:16 AM PDT by Mount Athos
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.
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 as well as for the legal costs of the cheating wife who had taken him to court.
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.
Seems fair.
/s
LOL that man is a cuck and now it is made public
That should encourage young men in Finland to get married—not!
According to the Finnish law men have up to two years to apply for voiding paternity...
They need the same statute of limitations on murder, apparently. At least it would make it more “fair”. ;)
He’s Finished.
Thank you. Stories like this remind me of the plus side to stay single.
Given an unstable person, this situation would yield a few dead bodies.
So sue the baby daddy
(too easy)
Sick that you think it’s funny. You must be a chick.
Does FUBAR pretty much describe the world we live in today?
Can’t this be the one time the husband can say “I didn’t have any skin in that game”?
Exact definition of the phrase:
To have “skin in the game” is to have incurred risk (monetary or otherwise) by being involved in achieving a goal. In the phrase, “skin” is a synecdoche for the person involved, and “game” is the metaphor for actions on the field of play under discussion.
I feel sorry for the kid. His “dad” will hate and resent him for the rest of his life. Who knows about bio dad. Recipe for anguish. Mom should be locked up doing this to her child. Poor baby.
you won the thread thanks
I am an old-timer who has been happily married for many years—but if I were a young man today facing a hostile court system—fuggedaboutit!
Yeah, that’s not gonna happen, judge.
It may be a matter of the deepest pockets.
I believe that’s pretty much how it works in the USA also. If you are married, the baby is presumed to be yours. I have heard of several cases where the not-Dad had to continue paying support, even after a DNA test.
Another reason men are opting to stay single. Men regularly get screwed in the Family Court System, and lose a major portion of their assets!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.