Date when decision was rendered: 22.5.2009

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 1080; S2008/149

Reference to source

KKO 2009:40.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2009 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2009 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2009 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 314-321

Subject

respect for family life, children, adoption,
respekt för familjeliv, barn, adoption,
perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, lapset, adoptio,

Relevant legal provisions

section 2-1 and section 9-2 of the Adoption Act

= adoptionslag 2 § 1 mom. och 9 § 2 mom.

= laki lapseksiottamisesta 2 § 1 mom. ja 9 § 2 mom.

ECHR-8

Abstract

The applicant had requested the court to grant him the right to adopt his wife's underage child.The applicant's wife consented to the adoption, but refused to reveal the identity of the child's father and objected to any investigation of paternity.The child's biological father was thus not known to the court and his consent to the adoption could not be obtained.According to the Adoption Act, the adoption of an underage child without the consent of the child's both parents may not be granted except for exceptional reasons.Both the court of first instance and the court of appeal rejected the application, holding that although there were good reasons speaking for the adoption, these were not "exceptional" as prescribed in the Adoption Act.

The Supreme Court did not agree with the lower courts.When the child was born, the couple was already married.Both adults, together with two younger siblings, formed the child's family, and ever since the child's birth, the applicant had been his father.The Supreme Court held that, in this case, inter-family adoption is likely to increase the child's feeling of security and equality and places all the three children in the family in an equal position both in legal and financial terms.The Court did not regard it as a weighty counterargument that after the adoption, the paternity of the child's biological father can no longer be established by means of the procedure under the Paternity Act.Both the applicant and his wife had stated during the proceedings that they consent to a possible investigation of paternity later at the child's own request.The Supreme Court concluded that in this case there were exceptional reasons to grant the applicant the right of adoption.In its decision, the Supreme Court also referred to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Todorova (judgment of 13 January 2009) and Jucius ad Juciviene (judgment of 25 November 2008).

18.6.2009 / 10.11.2009 / RHANSKI