Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Pohjois-Karjalan LO 11.6.1985 294/I AI generated

Child support claim dismissed because pension included higher child allowance than the support amount.

Case Number Pohjois-Karjalan LO 11.6.1985 294/I
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court dismissed the claim for child support, ruling that the father's failure to pay was not due to his illness or disability. The court found that the pension received from the insurance company already included a child allowance exceeding the statutory support amount. Consequently, the court held that no additional support payment was necessary as the pension served as adequate compensation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lapsen elatuksen turvaamisesta 21 §; If a pension includes a child allowance exceeding the statutory support amount, the claim for additional child support is dismissed as the pension constitutes sufficient compensation.

Keywords

AI generated
child support obligation pension child allowance statutory support amount administrative court decision financial compensation adequacy

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Lapsen elatuksen turvaamisesta 21 §
L lapsen elatuksen turvaamisesta 21 §
AI generated
insurance_1997_6859-1996
Insurance court dismissed claim for unpaid YEL premiums deducted from net pension under Finnish Insurance Act.
insurance_1980_8402-1979
Insurance court held that the year of decision by the pension fund counts as the year of lapse for YEL insurance obligations.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:48
Supreme Court dismisses alimony reduction claim due to significant savings and asset liquidation by the payer.
insurance_2003_4554-2002
Family pension based on deceased worker's voluntary supplementary benefits is excluded from calculation.
insurance_1972_2614-1971
Family pension received from state cannot be considered when deciding exemption from insurance duty under YEL.

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

Elatusvelvollisen sairauksista huolimatta ei elatusavun maksamisen

laiminlyönti ollut johtunut elatustuen määrän osalta

elatusvelvollisen sairaudesta tai vammaisuudesta, kun tämän

eläkevakuutusyhtiöltä saamaan eläkkeeseen sisältyi kysymyksessä

olevasta lapsesta johtuvaa lapsikorotusta 884,58 markkaa

kuukaudessa, mikä oli enemmän kuin elatustuki. Elatusapua

ei tullut jättää perimättä elatustuen korvaukseksi.

L lapsen elatuksen turvaamisesta 21 §