Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HO 19.11.1981 TU-627/81 AI generated

Child support claim dismissed because child could self-support and father had limited ability to pay.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HO 19.11.1981 TU-627/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for child support against the father, ruling that the child was already capable of meeting their own needs. Although the child had recently been employed, they had transitioned to receiving unemployment benefits, which the court deemed sufficient for self-sufficiency. The decision emphasized the father's weak financial position and limited capacity to contribute to the child's expenses.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Laki velvollisuuksien ja velkojen suorittamisesta; elatusvelvollisuus: Elatusapua ei myönnetä, jos lapsi kykenee itse vastaamaan elatuksestaan ja elatusvelvollinen on heikossa taloudellisessa asemassa.

Keywords

AI generated
child support obligation self-sufficiency of child father's financial capacity unemployment benefits family law dispute
AI generated
appeal_1984_eastern-finland__1825
Alimony claim dismissed because child could self-support during military service without state reimbursement for living costs.
appeal_1980_eastern-finland__216
Court reduces child support from 500 to 400 marks while maintaining custody arrangement.
appeal_1983_helsinki__899
Child support advance agreement deemed invalid as it extinguished future right to alimony under ElatusL 7 § 3.
kko-other_2023_99
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding child support changes affecting continuation of social assistance allowance.
kko-precedent_1998_4
Supreme Court allows alimony increase when recipient fails to provide income evidence, bearing adverse consequences.

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

RO oli, tuomitessaan A:n ja B:n avioeroon ja uskoessaan puolisoiden alaikäisen lapsen C:n A:n huoltoon ja kasvatettavaksi, velvoittanut B:n suorittamaan C:lle elatusapua. Koska C, joka oli ollut kolmen kuukauden ajan ennen RO:n päätöksen julistamista toisen palveluksessa ja työsuhteen päätyttyä alkanut saada työttömyyskorvausta, kykeni jo itse vastaamaan elatuksestaan, HO, huomioon ottaen myös B:n heikosta taloudellisesta asemasta ja työttömyydestä johtuvat vähäiset mahdollisuudet osallistua lapsen elatukseen, hylkäsi elatusapuvaatimuksen.

Rautiala: Lapsioikeus, s. 26 ja 29

Lainvoimainen