Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion HAO 21.11.2000 00/1176/1 AI generated

Mother's appeal to place child with grandmother dismissed; oral hearing and grandmother's hearing required.

Case Number Kuopion HAO 21.11.2000 00/1176/1
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 mother's appeal regarding the child's placement in foster care, rejecting her request to transfer custody to her mother-in-law. The mother argued that an oral hearing and the in-law's participation were mandatory under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court ruled that while the in-law was a relevant person, the existing placement decision did not violate procedural rights requiring such specific measures.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Hallintolainkäyttö 39 § 3 mom.; OK 17 luku 18 § 3 mom.: The court must determine if a person is a relevant party for an oral hearing; mere relevance does not automatically mandate a hearing or testimony if the decision can be made without it.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative procedure oral hearing requirement relevant person status child placement foster care transfer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Hallintolainkäyttö 39 § 3 mom.
OK 17 luku 18 § 3 mom.
AI generated
admin_2001_turku__23
Child support and family allowance counts as income for grandparent's means-tested benefit claim.
admin_1988_central-finland-county__766
Child custody awarded to grandmother after mother's death, overriding social board's initial decision.
ECLI:FI:KHO:2021:44
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal because child placement home order was replaced by a new decision.
admin_1986_aland-county__152
Child custody appeal dismissed because ending care would harm the child's established stability and best interests.
admin_2001_vaasa__5
Child placement decision upheld only if outside home; returning to mother home requires exceptional justification.

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

Huostaanotetun lapsen äiti valitti päätöksestä, jolla lapsi

oli sijoitettu perhehoitoon. Äiti vaati, että lapsi sijoitettaisiin

hänen äitinsä eli lapsen isoäidin hoitoon. Asiassa

vaadittiin suullista käsittelyä ja mm. sanotun isoäidin

kuulemista. Isoäitiä pidettiin suullisessa käsittelyssä OK

17 luvun 18 §:n 3 momentissa tarkoitettuna henkilönä. Hänen

kuulemiseensa sovellettiin asianosaista koskevia säännöksiä

ja oikeuteen saada korvausta tuomioistuimeen saapumisesta

todistajia koskevia säännöksiä.

Kts. HE 217/1995 s. 70.

HallintolainkäyttöL 39 § 3 mom.

OK 17 luku 18 § 3 mom.