Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Uudenmaan LO 27.6.1996 856/6 AI generated

Administrative court dismisses daycare restriction claim when child's voluntary consent overrides statutory duration limits.

Case Number Uudenmaan LO 27.6.1996 856/6
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 social committee's decision to limit the child's daycare attendance due to the mother's maternity leave. The court found that the daycare provider had no authority to restrict care against the child's explicit wishes, as the statutory duration rule yielding to compulsory school attendance did not apply here. Consequently, the court ruled that the mother's leave status was irrelevant and the original daycare arrangement must be maintained.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Laki lasten päivähoitosta 11 a §; The authority to limit a child's daycare attendance is subordinate to the child's voluntary consent, rendering statutory duration limits inapplicable when the child refuses continuation.

Keywords

AI generated
daycare duration limits child voluntary consent maternity leave impact administrative authority scope compulsory school transition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Laki lasten päivähoitosta 11 a §

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Uudenmaan LO:n päätös A:23.4.1992 T:530/2
Vertaa toisin Uudenmaan LO:n päätös A:23.4.1992 T:530/2
AI generated
admin_2009_turku__540
Father denied daycare user status under joint residence law due to intermittent visitation schedule.
admin_1994_uusimaa-county__680
Administrative court allows daycare fee as income when public daycare is available but not chosen.
admin_2013_kuopio__314
Administrative court allows appeal on child care decision when it affects subjective right to care.
admin_1989_lapland-county__1394
Social board ignored non-biological father's income; Administrative Court ruled he was de facto guardian and his income must be considered.
kko-precedent_2001_93
Supreme Court allows damages for municipality's failure to provide daycare under specific statutory duty.

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

Kunnan päivähoidontarkastaja oli päättänyt, että A:n

lapsi, joka oli B:n päiväkodissa kokopäivähoidossa,

sai vast'edes päivähoitoa B:n päiväkodissa kaksi kertaa

viikossa keskiviikkoisin ja torstaisin klo 8.30-11.30

A:n äitiysloman vuoksi. Sosiaalilautakunta oli pysyttänyt

ennallaan viranhaltijan päätöksen.

Koska lasten päivähoidosta annetun lain 11 a §:n (630/91)

mukaan lapsi voi olla päivähoidossa siihen saakka, kunnes

hän siirtyy peruskoululaissa (476/83) tarkoitettuna oppivelvollisena

peruskouluun tai sitä vastaavaan kouluun,

lääninoikeus katsoi, että viranhaltijalla ei ole ollut

oikeutta vastoin A:n tahtoa rajoittaa A:n lapsen päivähoitoa.

Silla seikalla, että A on äitiyslomalla toisen

lapsen syntymän vuoksi, ei ole vaikutusta asiassa.

Vertaa toisin Uudenmaan LO:n päätös A:23.4.1992 T:530/2

L lasten päivähoidosta 11 a §