Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Keski-Suomen LO 20.12.1984 1684 AI generated

Child custody decision dismissed due to insufficient written evidence and conflicting expert opinions.

Case Number Keski-Suomen LO 20.12.1984 1684
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The County Administrative Court dismissed the child custody decision because the Social Welfare Board relied primarily on oral information without adequate written documentation. Conflicting expert opinions regarding the mother's ability to care for the child further undermined the decision's foundation. The court ruled that the statutory requirements for a well-founded and thoroughly documented decision were not met.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

LastensuojeluL 16 §; LastensuojeluL 17 §: A decision on child custody must be based on sufficient written evidence and a coherent assessment, and conflicting expert opinions require reconciliation before a decision can be validly made.

Keywords

AI generated
child custody decision written evidence requirement conflicting expert opinions social welfare board administrative court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
LastensuojeluL 16 §
LastensuojeluL 17 §
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:5
Supreme Court dismisses appeal to remove supervised visitation rights due to father's violence and children's trauma.
kko-precedent_1992_132
Supreme Court remands case to Social Board for new inquiry on child's right to visit father.
admin_2003_vaasa__93
Administrative court dismissed parents' appeal regarding contact rights, ruling the Social Board's arrangement was lawful.
admin_1988_central-finland-county__766
Child custody awarded to grandmother after mother's death, overriding social board's initial decision.
admin_2012_hameenlinna__212
Administrative court dismissed foster care request because custody order is primary over removal under child protection law.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Sosiaalilautakunta oli perustanut lapsen huostaanottoa koskevan päätöksensä pääasiassa eri viranhaltijoilta saamaansa suullisesti esitettyyn henkilökohtaiseen tietoon. Asiakirjoihin ei ollut kuitenkaan liitetty asianmukaisesti laadittua kirjallista selvitystä siitä, mihin lapsen äidin yksilöityihin tekoihin, tapahtumiin perheessä tai olosuhteisiin esitetyt tiedot olivat perustuneet. Äidin kyvystä huolehtia lapsestä oli myös esitetty toisistaan poikkeavia asiantuntijalausuntoja. Lääninoikeus katsoi, ettei huostaanoton perusteita oltu riittävästi selvitetty.

LastensuojeluL 16 §

LastensuojeluL 17 §