Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 6.8.1992 1003/2 AI generated

Sibling allowance continued for second child during new maternity period if first child received it before period start.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 6.8.1992 1003/2
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 applicant's claim for sibling allowance for a second child during a new maternity period. The family had received the allowance for the first child prior to the new period, but the County Court ruled it applicable only to the first child. The court upheld this decision, interpreting the law to limit the allowance to the child who originally qualified for it before the maternity period began.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Act on Child Care Support s. 2; Act on Child Care Support s. 6: Sibling allowance continues for a child who received it before the new maternity period starts, but only if that specific child was the one originally entitled to it prior to the period's commencement.

Keywords

AI generated
sibling allowance maternity period child care support continuation of benefit eligibility criteria administrative court family benefits

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Act on Child Care Support s. 2
Act on Child Care Support s. 5
Act on Child Care Support s. 6
AI generated
admin_1989_oulu-county__501
Childcare support sibling allowance granted despite prior municipal daycare attendance before new maternity period.
admin_1991_turku-and-pori-county__543
Spouse of non-father guardian kept as party in custody case; appeal on standing rejected.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2019:96
Adult children of murder victims denied compensation for lost support due to lack of financial dependency.
appeal_1985_helsinki__31
Child's free court request dismissed because mother is legally obligated to pay costs and is deemed capable.
admin_1987_oulu-county__572
Family members born in 1952, 1956, and 1962 are considered deductible persons for tax purposes.

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

Oikeuskysymyksenä asiassa oli, oliko kaksilapsinen perhe,

jolle oli suoritettu lasten kotihoidon tuen perusosaa ja

sisaruskorotusta, uuden äitiysrahakauden alkaessa oikeutettu

perusoaa saaneen lapsen osalta sisaruskorotukseen.

Lasten kotihoidon tuesta annetun lain 6 §:n 1 momentin

mukaan, jos sisaruskorotusta saava perhe alkaa saada äitiysrahaa,

sisaruskorotusta suoritetaan, vaikka perhe saa

äitiys-, isyys- tai vanhempainrahaa. Hallituksen esityksessä

laiksi lasten kotihoidon tuesta (202/84) on todettu,

että sisaruskorotuksen maksamista jatkettaisiin sellaiselle

perheelle, joka välittömästi ennen uuden äitiysrahakauden

alkua on saanut sisaruskorotusta.

Lääninoikeus katsoi, että perheellä oli uuden äitiysrahakauden

aikana oikeus saada sisaruskorotusta vain siitä

lapsesta, josta sisaruskorotusta oli maksettu jo ennen

äitiysrahakauden alkamista.

L lasten kotihoidon tuesta 2 §

L lasten kotihoidon tuesta 5 §

L lasten kotihoidon tuesta 6 §