There are no grounds needed for divorce. Divorce is simply granted upon application of one of the spouses or upon application made by both spouses. This also applies to same-sex spouses. A written application must be submitted to a district court in the municipality of either spouse.

If only one of the spouses applies for divorce, the district court ex officio serves the application (also to foreign nations) on the other spouse and reserves for the other spouse the possibility to issue a written statement on the application. In practice, this possibility to issue a statement is a formality, as there is no legal means to object to divorce. Therefore, divorce is not handled in oral court proceeding and is solely a written process.

Although religious marriages are common practice for churches and other religious entities if they are licensed for marriage, only courts can legally dissolve marriages.

There are two ways to obtain a divorce, depending on whether or not the spouses have lived separately and for how long.

• Most commonly, divorce is granted after a reconsideration period of six months.
1. If the spouses file a joint application, the reconsideration period begins when the application is filed at the district court. If the application is filed by one of the spouses, the reconsideration period begins when it is served by the court on the other spouse.
2. Once the reconsideration period has ended, the spouses can jointly file an application for a final divorce judgment, or one of the spouses can do so. Once again, no grounds are needed at this point. The application must be filed within one year from the start of the reconsideration period. After this one-year term, divorce proceedings must start, if a second application has not been placed within that time.
• The spouses may have a divorce without a reconsideration period if they have lived separately for at least the past two years without interruptions. The separation must be proved, which is commonly achieved through entries from the population register or by the fact that the spouses have lived in different countries for at least two years.

Divorce matters are usually handled at the court quite quickly, within weeks rather than months.

When divorce is applied for, it is possible to claim an order for the end of common life in the same household at the same time. In such a matter, the court will determine which of the spouses may continue to live in the common home and use it, regardless of which of the spouses owns the home. The other spouse will be ordered to move out of the common household. If this matter is argued, an oral hearing will follow and it is decided separately from the divorce itself. Such a matter should be handled in an expedited process, which the courts do follow well. In practice, this claim is rarely used – most commonly in cases where there are significant differences in the spouses’ wealth and ability to accumulate income. The spouse with lower income-generating ability usually has the right to stay in the common home.

When divorce is applied for, the court may also order a spouse to pay maintenance to the other spouse, based on the application. Spousal maintenance is a rare institution in Finland (see 2.4 Spousal Maintenance).

The jurisdiction of Finnish courts in divorce matters is based on the residency of either spouse. If both spouses are habitually resident in Finland, there are no other requirements.

Nationality has relevance only if both of the spouses are Finnish citizens. In such cases, Finnish courts always have jurisdiction, even when the spouses have never lived in Finland, nor even visited the country. In all other cases, nationality has no relevance.

There are some limitations on the residency concept when only one of the spouses is resident in Finland. In these cases, Finnish courts have jurisdiction only when one (or more) of the following criteria is met:

• joint application is made;
• the spouses were last habitually resident in Finland and one of them still resides in Finland;
• the respondent spouse is habitually resident in Finland;
• the applicant is habitually resident in Finland and resided there for at least a year immediately before the application was filed; or
• the applicant is habitually resident in Finland and resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made, and is a Finnish citizen.

This means that a Finnish resident cannot apply for divorce immediately when they move back to Finland from a foreign country; application cannot be made for at least six or 12 months.

In national legislation, there is also a back-up clause for jurisdiction. If the applicant is resident in Finland or has other close links to Finland and cannot successfully start divorce proceedings in the foreign state where either spouse is domiciled, or if this would cause unreasonable inconvenience and the admissibility of the matter in Finland is justified in view of the circumstances, Finnish courts may rule they have jurisdiction on the matter. This usually requires extraordinary situations – eg, war or legal impossibility to file divorce in the other state.

Jurisdiction can be contested if the above-mentioned requirement for jurisdiction is not met. Courts are required to determine jurisdiction ex officio, but sometimes an applicant can give false information, or the registers determining residency are not accurate. In such cases, a party to a divorce proceeding must oppose jurisdiction when responding to court for the first time.

If a divorce proceeding is already filed in some other jurisdiction before being filed in Finland, it is possible to apply to stay proceedings in Finland and the Finnish divorce procedure is definitively ended. If one of the parties can prove that the other divorce proceeding is not real or that they will not get a fair trial, the procedure in Finland may continue.

A Finnish court has jurisdiction for financial proceedings if divorce is filed successfully in a Finnish court (ie, Finland has jurisdiction in the divorce proceedings). This is the case when both spouses are resident in Finland, in which case Finnish courts always have jurisdiction on financial matters.

According to the Brussels IIa Regulation, this jurisdictional connection with divorce proceeding has limitations if a spouse has applied for divorce on the grounds they have been habitually resident in Finland and resided there for at least a year immediately before the application was filed, or if they are habitually resident in Finland and resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made and are a Finnish citizen. In these cases, the jurisdiction of a Finnish court over financial matters is subject to the spouse’s agreement, even though the divorce case has jurisdiction in Finland.

In other cases, Finland courts have jurisdiction if (not depending on divorce proceeding):

• the spouses were last habitually resident in Finland and one of them still resides there;
• the respondent is habitually resident in Finland; and
• both spouses are Finnish citizens.

In these cases, spouses can make an agreement on jurisdiction, but agreed jurisdiction is limited to the country where the marriage was concluded, or to the country of choice of law of the spouses’ marital property regime.

Jurisdiction can be contested if the above-mentioned requirement for jurisdiction is not met or if spouses have agreed on jurisdiction. Courts are required to determine jurisdiction ex officio, but this is not always possible due to lack of information, in which case jurisdiction must be opposed when responding to court for the first time.

If financial proceedings have already commenced in some other jurisdiction before being filed in Finland, it is possible to apply to stay proceedings in Finland. Depending on the matter, this can lead to the ultimate end of proceedings, or to a temporary hold. If a financial proceeding has been filed in any other country before it was filed successfully in Finland, the Finnish court must stop proceedings if the foreign judgment would be recognised in Finland.

In international cases, it is not uncommon to have separate ongoing processes in different jurisdictions if one party can prove that Finnish financial matters will not be handled without Finnish proceedings.

If the spouses cannot agree on financial matters and the distribution of assets, the district court will appoint a distributor upon application. Such application may be filed by either spouse. No reasons need to be supplied for the request to nominate a distributor.

If only one of the spouses makes the application, the district court ex officio serves the application on the other spouse and reserves for the other spouse the possibility to issue a written statement on application. This service must happen before financial proceedings can start in Finland. As there are no grounds needed, the only thing that can be disputed in practice is the appointment of the distributor.

Although the law does not require it, distributors’ duties are performed by attorneys or other legal professionals (law professors, former judges, etc). The distributor must be absolutely impartial with regard to all parties.

In Finland, it is not possible to have all financial matters handled in a court of first instance; only limited and specific marital property financial matters can be taken to court, which happens very rarely. A distributor is the first instance and, after one is nominated, all services are private acts between parties and the distributor. It is up to the distributor to take care of all tasks, and they can request court assistance.

A distributor’s decision on financial matters can be appealed to a district court, and can then be taken to an appeals court and even to the Supreme Court if leave to appeal is granted. In this way, spouses’ financial matters will be handled in court. A small portion of cases end up in court through appeal.

The appointment of a distributor is usually decided within weeks if the spouses agree on a person. If not, it can take up to one year to appoint a distributor, and it is possible to appeal this. After a distributor is appointed, there is no specific timeline; it all depends on the case and the time required to handle the case. In international cases with significant assets, proceedings can take several years.

The main rule under the Marital Act is that all assets are divided equally between the spouses, after the deduction of debts. By law, this division includes all global assets, all assets owned and all profits gained, even before the marriage, up to the date when divorce was filed for by one of the spouses. Also, assets inherited or received as gifts are part of the division if the testator or donor has not ruled this out in a will or deed of gift, which is now common practice.

In the first stage, all assets and debts are valued, and the division of property is made in euros. As a main rule, both parties keep their own assets and debts. The party that has more assets is liable to pay adjustment to the other party; they can pay this in cash or with marital property they own. If this is not decided by the party that is liable to pay, payment will be determined by the distributor or, if appealed, by the court. In these cases, most disputes arise from the valuation of assets. If the parties have jointly owned property, ownership can be dissolved after separation. If no other solution is found, the distributor will ultimately sell such property and the parties will be paid the sales price.

As equal division of property is a rule, it can lead to an unreasonable result or to the other spouse receiving unjust financial benefit. In such a matter, the Marriage Act allows for an adjustment to the division of property. A distributor or court can adjust the outcome after considering the duration of the marriage, the activities of the spouses for their common household and for the accumulation and preservation of the property, and other comparable facts regarding the finances of the spouses. Adjustment of the division of property is an exception, and must be regarded as such. Most commonly, it is used when there is a short-term marriage, normally one under five years, or when there is a significant difference of assets and those assets are not accumulated during the marriage.

Both spouses must disclose all their assets and debts to the distributor. The distributor has limited resources to search assets, and has no power to give orders to disclose assets. This is somewhat problematic as it can be quite easy for parties to hide assets. In financial proceedings, the tax authority can disclose both spouses’ tax information on the request of one spouse or the distributor, which gives quite good insight into the parties’ assets and debts. Courts have legal power to give orders to disclose assets, but this is in practice non-existent, as it is still only up to the party to disclose assets – courts cannot make orders for disclosure to third parties. Not disclosing assets when asked to do so is considered a criminal offence (fraud). Courts have quite strict practice with such fraud, and can be sanctioned with more than two years’ imprisonment in cases where significant amounts have not been disclosed fraudulently. This fact prevents asset hiding in most cases.

Trusts are not recognised in Finland. However, if one spouse is a beneficiary in trust or if assets have been transferred into trust to avoid the division of marital property, the trust assets can be taken into consideration.

Spousal maintenance is recognised in legislation, but is used in very few cases in practice. During marriage it is mostly unknown, although it is possible by law. The main approach is that:

• spousal maintenance duties are fulfilled during the course of the marriage as the spouses wish;
• spousal maintenance responsibilities are over after the breakdown of the marriage; and
• it is up to each spouse to take care of their own needs – if needed, the social welfare system will support.

Spousal maintenance is used mainly in divorce cases when the other party is from a foreign, low-income country and has no social network or job in Finland, with limited financial resources. In these cases, maintenance can be ordered until the division of property is finalised; if that does not suffice, maintenance can continue normally for a maximum of two years.

The amount of maintenance is normally relatively low and is not determined by the standards of living during the marriage, although this can have some relevance.

Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are recognised and must be followed by courts and distributors. Spouses may enter a marital property agreement either before they marry or at any time during the marriage. This is quite a popular agreement because the Finnish marital property regime covers all assets, even those obtained before the time of marriage.

Such an agreement must be made with the formalities required by law (signatures and witnesses), but it is made solely privately. It is not possible to have a notarised prenuptial agreement. To make an agreement valid, it must be registered with the local magistrate.

As said, agreements are strictly followed as a main rule. The law allows for the adjustment of a marital property agreement, but use of this legislation is very limited in practice, only being used in cases when an agreement can lead to an obviously unjustifiable or unreasonable result. To some extent, spouses’ financial needs can result in the adjustment of an agreement that minimises the use of spousal maintenance.

Courts adjust marital property agreements commonly in cases of long marriage where one spouse with no notable assets has made a significant effort in the household or worked without decent pay in a family company and the other spouse has accumulated wealth during the marriage. Even in such cases, the division of property is not judged as equal division; the result of adjustment is normally a fraction of assets or a fixed amount.

There is special legislation in relation to unmarried cohabitants. The main rule is that parties will have their own assets after separation and there is no possibility of the division of assets.

However, a cohabitant can have a monetary claim of excessive inputs into the other cohabitant’s assets. There is quite a heavy burden of proof from the claimant, but orders to pay exist in practice. Successful cases are normally quite obvious where the other cohabitant has paid all family costs and even paid partly for assets owned by the other party. Everyday spending cannot normally be used successfully as a ground for claims.

To use this cohabitation legislation, there are two requirements. Cohabitation must have continued for at least five consecutive years or the cohabitants must have a common child. This does not guarantee any compensation. Requirements for compensation set in law must be met.

If a party has a court order, it is enforceable by law and a claim can be taken to the enforcement office. The enforcement system is a public service and a separate office. It is considered to be effective and cheap for the claimant.

If a financial decision is made by the distributor, as it is in most cases, this decision is not enforceable and one must have enforcement of judgment first.

Judgments and similar orders from European Union countries are enforceable. Orders from other countries are not. There are exclusions on spousal maintenance orders and those can be accepted as enforceable.

As most cases are handled by distributors, family proceedings are completely private, and the media does not have any access. This is one of the reasons why the system of distributors is widely accepted.

If a case is appealed to the court, the main rule is that all material and cases are public. It is possible to request that spouses’ financial information is kept private, but courts do not normally accept such requests.

It is not possible to anonymise proceedings or the names of the parties at court.

The media’s ability to report is somewhat limited. It cannot disclose the names of parties unless it is a question of a public figure or unless publishing the names would be in the public interest. This is quite well followed by the media. Politicians, celebrities, sportspeople and well-known business figures are normally the ones whose names are published.

One important fact is that, after the prenuptial or postnuptial agreement has been registered in a magistrate’s court, which is mandatory, the agreement becomes a public document and can be obtained from the register by anyone. A magistrate can hide some financial information in the agreement (eg, the exact amounts to be paid in case of divorce).

Private distributors are the first instance to handle financial matters. The law states that it is the distributor’s duty to encourage parties to agree their dispute and to help the parties reach agreement. The success of this depends on each individual case. In general, about half of the cases end in agreement with the distributor’s proceedings. Such agreement is final and comparable to a court judgment. To have it enforced, exequatur must be applied for from the court, but this is not usually needed, as part of the agreement is that the agreement is enforced before it is final.

If the case is appealed to the court, the court offers the possibility of mediation. Such mediation is stated in law and is completely voluntary – not using it does not have any negative effect on the normal court proceeding. Mediation is run by an experienced judge who was not previously involved in the case. There are no minutes drawn up, and discussions are informal. A key objective is that the dispute is settled without following the legislation and parties are free to determine the terms of settlement. Mediation at court is free of charge, but parties are responsible for their own legal fees if they use counsel. One of the biggest advantages is the speed of the process, which can be significantly less than with normal court proceedings.

If agreement is reached at court mediation, the status of the agreement is equal to a court judgment. The agreement is legally final and enforceable immediately.

In children-related proceedings, Finnish courts have jurisdiction if the child has habitual residence in Finland at the time the matter is taken to court. This is the main rule; nationality has no relevance in this matter. Courts tend to rule that they have jurisdiction quite easily if the child is registered in Finland with a Finnish resident parent. Any other proof of living in Finland is also carefully considered.

Residency is considered under the normal residency rules. The law states that a child who has lived in Finland without interruptions for at least one year immediately before the matter was taken to the court is considered to be habitually resident in Finland, unless otherwise shown in the case.

A Finnish court can also have jurisdiction after its consideration, even if the child is not habitually resident in Finland at the time the case is taken to court, if the child is currently residing more or less temporarily in Finland or if the consideration is deemed justified for some other reason and:

• the child has been habitually resident in Finland during the year preceding the court case; or
• the child has, all relevant things considered, another close connection to Finland.

If agreement on the child’s living arrangements and visitation are not reached, either parent can take the case to court. Courts consider cases as they would any dispute, and child matters must be given expedited handling.

Both parents are legal custodians of a child, which means that parents together decide all relevant matters relating to the child. Divorce or separation does not change this principle, nor does the fact that the other parent lives in another country. Parenting decisions would also be made together after separation. Living in different countries is a practical question, and the principle of common custody is clear, but courts have powers to order otherwise too.

The question about where a child would live after separation is considered from the child’s point of view. If parents live close to each other, living is based more and more on a week-by-week basis with each parent. The key principle is that both parents are considered to be good parents to live with.

In cases where parents do not live close to each other or live in different countries, a court would decide where the child should live. In international cases, especially if the child has not lived for long in Finland, the child could be ordered to live in the other country if that is in the best interest of the child.

Visitation rights are important to parties and the child. Courts try to establish adequate visitations if parents cannot agree and one parent is opposing visitations.

If parents agree on a child’s living and visitations/contact, courts must verify such agreement if it is not obviously contrary to the child’s interest. In practice, agreements are always verified.

Maintenance is determined on three factors:

• the net income of the primary caregiver (ie, the parent living with children) after housing costs and other necessary living costs;
• the net income of the other parent after housing costs and other necessary living costs; and
• the needs and spending of the children, which is decisive.

Both parents must take part in payments. When one parent has more income, they are responsible for the majority of payments. When doing calculations, both parents are expected to work and have income, if there is not adequate reason not to work.

Child support is not meant to cover 100% of the previous standard of living, but more likely an average Finnish standard of living. Child support payments are relatively low compared to some jurisdictions, and are meant to cover basic needs. Healthcare is free as it is covered by the state. If the child has activities and hobbies that are reasonable, those must be covered.

Parents can agree maintenance payments freely without court involvement, and this happens most of the time. Parents are also encouraged to use a local social welfare office, which offers guidance on child maintenance and visitation agreements.

If not agreed, a court will order one parent to pay maintenance, and such order is enforceable. Court orders are normally monthly payments until the child reaches 18 years of age. Increases in payment are determined by law, reflecting the cost-of-living index. If child maintenance needs to change or if the parents’ ability to pay changes significantly, a new court order must be applied for, or parents must make new agreements.

A child must be represented by a parent or other legal guardian when claiming maintenance.

Courts have powers to make orders on all parental responsibilities and powers – eg, residential permit application, schooling, medical treatment, religion, holidays, language taught to child, etc – if the parents have significant disagreements on these matters. In practice, this is applied rarely and such matters should be decided by the parents. In disputed cases, on the other hand, such orders are very important and should be requested by parties.

If parental alienation is obvious, courts take this into account when deciding child matters, especially parents’ access to the child. All things are considered and courts tend to promote the establishment of the alienated parent’s contact with children. This can include proactive enforcement orders so the alienated parent can act swiftly to enforce orders.

A child may be heard in court in person, if this is necessary for resolving the case and the child requests it or consents to it. However, children under 12 years of age may be heard in person only if the hearing is absolutely necessary, and it must be assessed that the hearing will not cause the child any significant harm. A child can be heard with nobody else but one or more members of the court present, if this is necessary to protect the child or to find out the child’s independent opinion. If the child is considered mature enough to give their opinion on the case, this opinion will be taken into account, all things being considered. The older the child is, the more decisive their opinion can be. For example, if a child is 16 or older, and their opinion is genuine, it has great significance. In practice, children are not very often heard at court. A child’s opinion is normally reported in a status evaluation made by a local social office at the request of the court.

Parents have the option to use a local social welfare office’s services on child matters. These offices are required to offer help to parents to reach an agreement on all child-related matters.

If parents are willing to agree, this is the most common way to take care of an agreement outside court, with the majority of agreements being made at the social welfare offices. If agreement is reached, the social welfare office has powers to verify such agreement and, after this, the parents’ agreement is equivalent to a court order and is instantly enforceable like a court order.

In child-related matters, the courts also offer the possibility of mediation. Such mediation is stated in law and is completely voluntary – not using it does not have any negative effect on the normal court proceeding. Mediation is run by an experienced judge who was not previously involved in the case. One of the biggest advantages is the speed of the process, which can be significantly less than with normal court proceedings.

If agreement is reached at court mediation, the status of the agreement is equal to a court judgment. Agreement is legally final and enforceable immediately.

Use of these alternative mechanisms is voluntary, and a case can be taken into full court handling at any time.

If a child-related case is at court, those are public cases. Only documents and hearings related to health issues are generally non-public information. The media is able to report on these matters, but the names of the parties cannot be disclosed if there is no substantial public interest in the case, in order to protect the privacy of the child.

The names of the parties cannot be anonymised if the case is public. The media is not allowed to report names as a default, to protect the privacy of the parties. The media follows this expectation well and child-related matters are rarely in the media, with child abduction cases being the main cases that are reported.