Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 21.1.1988 42/II AI generated

Father not liable for child support costs after divorce if no court order or agreement existed.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 21.1.1988 42/II
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 against the father for child support costs incurred during the child's foster care period. The father argued he was not obligated to pay alimony, as no court judgment or agreement required him to do so during that time. The court ruled that without a specific legal obligation to pay alimony, the father could not be held liable for the associated foster care expenses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lastensuojelulaki 46 § 1 kohta; Lapsen elatuksesta 4 §; AL 80 § 2 mom: A parent is not liable for child support costs incurred during foster care if no court order or agreement imposes an obligation to pay alimony.

Keywords

AI generated
child support costs foster care liability divorce alimony obligation parental responsibility administrative court decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Lastensuojelulaki 46 § 1 kohta
Lapsen elatuksesta 4 §
L lapsen elatuksesta 4 §
AL 80 § 2 mom
AL 80 § 2 mom (681/1948)
AI generated
insurance_1984_2663-1983
Child support for 18-year-old student limited to duration of high school attendance by insurance court.
kko-precedent_1997_173
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; father's duty to fund 18-year-old's high school costs deemed unreasonable given financial hardship.
kko-precedent_1993_116
Supreme Court reduces child support for Finland father due to significant income loss from business failure and job loss.
appeal_1980_kouvola__282
Court increased child support due to improved income, disregarding prior lump-sum payment benefit.
appeal_1986_helsinki__106
Court dismissed spouse's request to modify custody and alimony as no such claim was filed in divorce proceedings.

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

Lapsen isä ei ollut velvollinen avioeron jälkeen korvaamaan

lapselle annetun lastensuojeluhoidon kustannuksia, koska

häntä ei ollut velvoitettu tuomiolla tai sopimuksella suorittamaan

elatusapua lapselle huostassaoloajalta.

LastensuojeluL 46 § 1 kohta

L lapsen elatuksesta 4 §

AL 80 § 2 mom (681/1948)