Helena Koivu’s legal troubles have taken another turn as the Varsinais-Suomen käräjäoikeus (District Court) recently dismissed her request for temporary restraining orders against her ex-husband, former professional hockey player Mikko Koivu, and a maintenance worker who was allegedly spotted alongside him. The decision marked another chapter in their tumultuous post-divorce relationship, laden with accusations of harassment, fear, and disputes over property ownership.
Helena Koivu had expressed alarming fears for her safety, claiming she was living under constant distress and believed her ex-husband had even hired someone to intimidate her. On November 18, she officially filed her request for the restraining order, alleging violations of her privacy and safety, including repeated disruptions to the utilities supplied to her home—specifically, she claimed both heat and electricity had been turned off multiple times.
Despite her assertions, the court found no sufficient evidence to validate these claims. The judges concluded there was no objective proof corroborated against Mikko Koivu, which led them to label Helena’s request as "ilmeisesti perusteeton," or blatantly unfounded. The court has set another session to discuss broader restraining orders related to Helen's claims against both Mikko and his new wife, Nattie, scheduled for March 5, 2025.
The nature of this dispute is steeped deeply within their complicated history—especially concerning property ownership disputes. The crux of the conflict revolves around their shared assets, particularly specific residences, after their split. A previous ruling by the Minnesota appellate court reaffirmed Mikko Koivu as the sole owner of the property, and legal procedures are still pending with respect to registration ownership as of June 2025.
At the heart of their interpersonal skirmish is more than just property disputes but rather longstanding feelings of betrayal and distrust from both ends. Helena cited instances of supposed trespass; she argued on one occasion, Mikko had entered her home without her consent along with the maintenance worker. Mikko, on the other hand, asserted this visit was merely procedural, aimed at ensuring the property’s utilities were functioning properly—as stipulated by the area’s seasonal requirements.
During the court's deliberation, it was noted, "Mikko Koivun ratkaisu mennä asuntoon hetkeksi sisälle huoltomiehen kanssa Helena Koivun poissa ollessa... ei muodosta perustetta lähestymiskiellon määräämiselle väliaikaisena." The judgement strongly emphasized the perspective of longstanding conflict shared between the two rather than actionable harassment claims.
Helena Koivu's frustrations and fears were palpable as she described her situation, stating, "Tarvitsen suojan ja rauhan kotiini, jotta voin asua lasteni kanssa ilman jatkuvaa pelkoa tunkeutumisesta ja häirinnästä." This assertion underscored her sense of vulnerability amid the legal battles, reinforcing her belief of being stalked or surveilled within her private domain.
Mikko has also previously sought restraining orders against Helena, raising similar concerns about harassment. While his claims to protect their mutual children were not accepted, it sets the scene for contentious family dynamics influenced heavily by their unresolved issues.
Both parties remain entrenched within long-standing disputes. The court’s recent action, according to legal advisors, emphasizes the need for both to seek friendly resolution pathways rather than fueling existing tensions, mirroring advice often extended during family law disputes. The case underlines the delicate intersection between legal and personal grievances, where emotions dangerously intertwine with the expectation of legal objectivity.
The next months leading up to the announced court date will be telling, potentially pregnant with renewed emotions or perhaps avenues toward reconciliation. Yet, between Helena Koivu's expressed fears and Mikko Koivu's contestations, the narrative remains fraught as they navigate the restive waters of post-marital disputes.