Child Protection Offences And Enforcement
Child Protection Offences in Finnish Law
In Finland, child protection offences are mainly addressed under:
Criminal Code of Finland (Act No. 39/1889, as amended)
Chapter 21: Offences against sexual self-determination, including sexual abuse of a child (Sections 6–12).
Chapter 20: Assault and bodily harm, including aggravated assault on children.
Child Welfare Act (Act No. 417/2007)
Provides preventive and protective measures, including reporting, intervention, and removal of children from abusive environments.
Police and Criminal Investigation
Police, social services, and prosecutors often work jointly to investigate offences like sexual abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
Key Principle: In Finland, the state places strong emphasis on child safety, requiring prompt intervention and rigorous investigation of offences. Courts also scrutinize evidence thoroughly due to the sensitive nature of child testimony.
Case Studies of Child Protection Offences
1. Sexual Abuse by a Guardian – Helsinki District Court (2015)
Facts: A 35-year-old guardian was accused of repeatedly sexually abusing a 10-year-old child under their care.
Charges: Sexual abuse of a child under 16, aggravated.
Court Proceedings:
The court relied heavily on child testimony, medical examinations, and psychological evaluations.
Defense questioned reliability of child’s testimony.
Court Reasoning:
Finnish courts apply the “credibility of the child” principle, considering consistency, psychological impact, and corroborating evidence.
Expert reports confirmed signs of abuse consistent with the child’s statements.
Outcome: Defendant sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
Significance: Highlights how courts combine testimonial evidence, expert reports, and forensic evidence to secure convictions.
2. Neglect Leading to Death – Oulu District Court (2017)
Facts: Parents were charged after severe neglect led to the death of a 2-year-old child.
Charges: Neglect of a child causing death (Chapter 21, Section 11).
Court Proceedings:
Evidence included medical records showing untreated injuries and malnutrition.
Social service reports indicated repeated warnings.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized duty of care and parental responsibility.
The neglect was deemed grossly negligent and directly caused death.
Outcome: Both parents convicted; father sentenced to 8 years, mother to 7 years.
Significance: Shows Finnish courts’ strict enforcement against neglect, particularly when death or serious harm occurs.
3. Sexual Exploitation via the Internet – Tampere Court of Appeal (2018)
Facts: A man solicited explicit images from a 13-year-old via social media.
Charges: Sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child sexual abuse material.
Court Proceedings:
Investigators traced digital communications and verified images.
Defendant argued images were sent voluntarily.
Court Reasoning:
Finnish law criminalizes any sexualized interaction with a child under 16, regardless of consent.
Digital evidence, IP logs, and chat history were sufficient for conviction.
Outcome: Defendant sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; lifetime restriction from working with children imposed.
Significance: Illustrates strict liability for online sexual exploitation and use of digital evidence in prosecution.
4. Physical Abuse in Foster Care – Espoo District Court (2016)
Facts: Foster parents physically abused a 7-year-old child, causing bruises and psychological trauma.
Charges: Assault and child abuse.
Court Proceedings:
Child interviewed under the special child interview protocols to prevent trauma.
Medical and school reports corroborated abuse.
Court Reasoning:
Court held that intentional physical abuse of a child in care is aggravated due to breach of trust.
Outcome: Foster mother sentenced to 4 years; foster father 5 years. Child protection services took custody of other children in the household.
Significance: Courts treat abuse in custodial environments as especially serious, enhancing penalties.
5. Sexual Abuse in a School Setting – Turku District Court (2019)
Facts: A teacher was accused of sexual touching of multiple students aged 12–14.
Charges: Multiple counts of sexual abuse of a child and abuse of a position of trust.
Court Proceedings:
Evidence included video surveillance, witness statements, and student interviews.
Teacher denied the allegations.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized abuse of authority and position of trust, aggravating the offence.
Conviction required corroboration due to sensitive nature of child testimony.
Outcome: Teacher sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and permanently barred from working with minors.
Significance: Shows enhanced penalties when offenders hold positions of trust.
6. Child Neglect with Psychological Harm – Rovaniemi District Court (2020)
Facts: Parents failed to provide necessary mental health care for a 12-year-old child, leading to severe psychological harm.
Charges: Neglect of a child causing serious health harm.
Court Proceedings:
Psychiatric evaluations and school reports indicated long-term trauma.
Parents argued lack of knowledge.
Court Reasoning:
Finnish law imposes strict duty of care, especially when harm is foreseeable.
Courts found that repeated inaction constituted gross neglect.
Outcome: Parents received suspended sentences and mandatory supervision. Child welfare services implemented protective measures.
Significance: Shows that neglect includes failure to provide mental health care, not only physical care.
Key Principles from Finnish Case Law on Child Protection Offences
Strict Protection Standard: Children under 16 are considered incapable of legal consent in sexual matters.
Enhanced Penalties for Positions of Trust: Teachers, guardians, and foster parents face stricter sentencing if abuse occurs.
Corroboration Required but Child Testimony Is Crucial: Courts accept psychological and medical evidence to support testimony.
Neglect Includes Psychological Harm: Both physical and mental welfare are protected under Finnish law.
Digital Exploitation Fully Criminalized: Online solicitation and sharing of sexual content involving minors carry heavy penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments