Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 1.6.1993 613/2 AI generated

Parents of an 18-year-old are not parties to post-care cases under the Child Welfare Act.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 1.6.1993 613/2
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 parents' appeal regarding their standing in a post-care case for their 18-year-old child. The Social Board correctly determined that parents ceased to be parties once the child turned 18, as post-care measures under Section 34 of the Child Welfare Act are no longer applicable. However, the Board was obligated to continue supporting the youth under Section 13 of the same Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lastensuojelulain 34 §; Lastensuojelulain 13 §: Parents of a minor who has reached the age of 18 are not parties to proceedings concerning post-care measures under Section 34, but the authority remains bound to provide support under Section 13.

Keywords

AI generated
child welfare act post-care measures parental standing age of majority social support obligation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Lastensuojelulain 13 §
Lastensuojelulain 14 §
Lastensuojelulain 22 §
Lastensuojelulain 24 §
Lastensuojelulain 34 §
lastensuojelulain 34 §:ssä tarkoitettua jälkihuoltoa
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KHO:2025:47
Supreme Administrative Court allows residence permit as family member despite alienation by other guardian.
kho-precedent_2009_35
Supreme Administrative Court allows residence permit for Afghan family members based on total dependency despite broken family ties.
kho-precedent_2009_31
Supreme Administrative Court allows residence permit for minor sibling without requiring applicant to remain a minor at application time.
admin_1991_kyme-county__429
Student living with parents denied social aid as parents covered costs under child support laws.
kho-other_2019_5230
Supreme Administrative Court dismissed appeal; continued residence denied due to lack of special ties despite age of majority.

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

Perheryhmäkodin vanhemmat, joiden hoidossa ja kasvatuksessa

nuori oli ollut, eivät lastensuojelulain säännösten nojalla

olleet enää asianosaisia 18 vuotta täyttäneen nuoren

lastensuojelun jälkihuoltoa koskevassa asiassa.

Sosiaalilautakunnalla ei ollut velvollisuutta järjestää

avohuollon tukitoimena perheryhmäkodissa asuneelle nuorelle

lastensuojelulain 34 §:ssä tarkoitettua jälkihuoltoa

sen jälkeen kun nuori oli täyttänyt 18 vuotta. Lautakunnalla

oli kuitenkin velvollisuus tukea nuorta lastensuojelulain

13 §:ssä tarkoitetulla tavalla.

LastensuojeluL 13 §

LastensuojeluL 14 §

LastensuojeluL 22 §

LastensuojeluL 24 §

LastensuojeluL 34 §