Document: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/185.0 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 2018-05-21 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-05-21
Summary (Justice Demanded)
In the court proceedings, Aaron Surina, the father and respondent, seems to face potential judicial bias and unfairness. Despite Mr. Surina’s attempts to comply with court orders and protect his children’s welfare, his concerns are often dismissed or not adequately addressed by the Superior Court of Washington, County of Spokane, presided over by the Honorable Nichole Swennumson.
Mr. Surina alleges violations of the temporary parenting plan by the mother, including not providing prior notice of healthcare appointments for their children, David and Andrew, and concealing vital health information. Despite the potential health risk to the children, the court does not take significant action against the mother. Instead, Mr. Surina’s interruptions to clarify concerns are met with threats of sanctions, reinforcing the perception of bias.
The court also seems to dismiss Mr. Surina’s allegations of perjury and his concerns about the integrity of the opposing party’s declarations. Mr. Surina’s financial hardships, emotional distress, and his desire for increased time with his children are often disregarded, exacerbating his feelings of being treated unjustly. His financial struggles are not adequately considered by the court, even when he states he is living on credit cards and cannot afford attorney fees.
Furthermore, the court appears to favor the mother in the selection of the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) and the mediator. Despite Mr. Surina’s pro se status and his concerns about potential favoritism, the court insists on proceeding with their own appointed GAL and mediator, who Mr. Surina perceives as being friends with the opposing counsel, Mr. Glanzer.
Mr. Surina’s requests for court-ordered mediation are seemingly ignored or refused, and his concerns about possible bias in the selection of a mediator are dismissed. The court’s lack of response to these requests and dismissal of his concerns could be perceived as bias against him.
Additionally, there are instances where decisions are made without adequately involving Mr. Surina or considering his input. This potential disregard for his perspective, coupled with the conversation with Mr. Glanzer in the absence of Mr. Surina’s input or consent, might suggest an unacceptable bias towards Mr. Glanzer’s side.
Mr. Surina’s requests for an interpreter have not been fully addressed, potentially hindering his full understanding of the proceedings. His confusion about the appointment of a guardian ad litem and the court’s order for the appointment based on the GAL’s submission, rather than Mr. Surina’s stance or needs, could be seen as bias.
In summary, the court proceedings display potential bias and unfair treatment towards Mr. Surina. His financial and emotional hardships, along with his concerns for his children’s wellbeing, appear to be overlooked. The perceived favoritism in the selection of the GAL and mediator, along with other potential injustices, could indicate unethical conduct and potential bias by the attorneys, particularly Stanley Kempner or Keith Glanzer, representing Sirinya Surina, Carl Wilson, or Keith Glanzer. Despite these challenging circumstances, Mr. Surina continues to fight for the best interests of his children.
About The Author
