Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Turun HAO 7.6.2005 05/0406/2 AI generated

Childcare fee for second child in partial care must be calculated based on full care rate minus sibling discount.

Case Number Turun HAO 7.6.2005 05/0406/2
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court ruled that the municipality must calculate the partial-daycare fee for the second child based on the full-daycare rate for that child, reduced by the applicable sibling discount. The municipality had incorrectly set the fee at 60% of the second child's full-daycare rate without first determining what that rate would be if the child were in full care. The court held that the law requires the sibling discount to be applied to the hypothetical full-care fee, not the actual partial-care fee, ensuring the family's total financial burden reflects the child's position in the household.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 7a §; The sibling discount must be calculated by applying the percentage reduction to the hypothetical full-daycare fee for the child, rather than to the actual partial-daycare fee already determined.

Keywords

AI generated
childcare fee calculation sibling discount application partial day care family income assessment administrative fee standard

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 7a §
Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 7a §
AI generated
admin_1990_kuopio-county__274
Court allows child care fee deduction based on partner's share of partnership profit despite no dividend distribution.
admin_1987_mikkeli-county__418
Childcare fee classification based on father's income rejected; classification depends on guardians, not family income.
admin_1999_uusimaa-county__661
Court allows spousal support deduction from care fees when no written agreement exists but contributions were made.
admin_1986_turku-and-pori-county__869
Childcare fee assessment ignores child care allowance as continuous personal income under Social Services Act.
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.

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 se, miten ylimmässä maksuluokassa perheen toisen osapäivähoidossa olevan lapsen päivähoitomaksu määrätään.

Hallinto-oikeus katsoi lain tarkoituksena olevan, että lapsen järjestysluku perheessä ja sisaruuden vaikutus otetaan huomioon maksun suuruutta määrättäessä myös osapäivähoidossa olevan lapsen osalta. Näin ollen osapäivähoitomaksun määräytymisen perusteena tulee kunkin lapsen osalta käyttää sitä maksua, joka lapsen osalta olisi peritty, jos hän olisi ollut kokopäivähoidossa. Kun toiseksi nuorimman lapsen kokopäivähoidosta peritty maksu olisi ollut 180 euroa kuukaudessa, osapäivähoidon maksu oli määrättävä kunnan päättämän alennusprosentin mukaan 60 prosentiksi 180 eurosta eli 108 euroksi. Kunta oli määrännyt maksun sisaralennusta huomioon ottamatta 60 prosentiksi nuorimman lapsen kokopäivähoitomaksusta 200 eurosta.

Asiakirjoissa sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön lausunto.

Laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakasmaksuista 7a §