Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER RE PSYCH
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/160.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER RE PSYCH 2018-03-06 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-03-06
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The combined summary of this extensive document raises serious concerns about potential bias and unfair treatment of Aaron Surina within the court system. The legal proceedings reveal a possible pre-judgment of his character, with suggestions of mental health issues and repeated, potentially unwarranted, accusations of child abuse. Throughout, Aaron’s concerns for his children’s welfare and the potential abuse they may be suffering seems to be ignored or dismissed.
Despite Aaron’s effort to protect his children and his dedication to their well-being, the court documents suggest that his actions are portrayed negatively and used against him. There is a recurring theme of Aaron’s concerns being disregarded, with his pleas for a fair hearing often dismissed. Moreover, the court’s decision to deny a protection order, despite Aaron’s concerns about stalking and harassment, demonstrates a potential lack of fairness.
The documents also indicate potential violations of Aaron’s and his children’s rights under RCW 7.69A.030(4). They include explicit personal information about Aaron and his child, which may infringe upon their rights and cause undue distress.
Furthermore, the court’s handling of the Ex Parte process and the fact that Aaron is representing himself without an attorney raises questions about the fairness of the proceedings. The court often dismisses Aaron’s input, violating his right to be heard, and suggests that he should seek legal counsel and possibly counseling, which could undermine his capacity to make decisions about his case.
Finally, the court’s suggestion that Aaron needs ‘appropriate support’ before proceeding in any other matters can be seen as patronizing and indicative of a pre-conceived negative bias against him. The substantial attorney fees imposed on Aaron Surina could also be seen as a form of financial strain, especially if he is expected to cover these costs without evidence of wrongdoing.
In conclusion, these documents suggest a potential bias against Aaron Surina, possibly portraying him unfairly as a harmful figure without providing concrete evidence or giving him a fair chance to contest these allegations. His concerns about his children’s safety appear to have been dismissed or inadequately addressed, which could be viewed as an injustice against him. The documents also reveal a potential cultural bias on Aaron’s part, as he asserts that his ex-wife’s non-American heritage might influence her behavior towards their children. Despite the challenges and difficulties he has faced, Aaron Surina demonstrates a strong commitment to his children’s safety, making every effort to protect them from harm.
About The Author
