Document: ORDER ON CONTEMPT 18904863-0
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/201.0 ORDER ON CONTEMPT 18904863-0 2018-06-28 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-06-28
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: ORDER ON CONTEMPT 18904863-0
The court document regarding the Contempt Hearing Order reveals a notable bias against Aaron Surina. A lack of transparency is evident in the judgment, especially concerning Surina’s financial obligations such as undisclosed lawyer fees and costs. In addition, the document fails to provide clear details about any support orders that Surina allegedly disobeyed, leaving questions about his supposed non-compliance unanswered.
The document also lacks concrete evidence or reasoning behind the assertions of Surina’s ability or inability to comply with past orders, leaving it unclear whether his supposed non-compliance was intentional or unintentional. This absence of clarity, combined with unchecked boxes indicating his compliance status, suggests a bias against Surina, as it creates an impression of wrongdoing without providing a clear explanation.
Furthermore, the document’s sections pertaining to the Parenting Plan, Residential Schedule, or Custody Order are left incomplete, creating a potential for further bias against Surina. Similarly, the document indicates that Surina is obligated to pay “reasonable” lawyer fees and costs without providing a clear explanation or a chance for dispute, which could be seen as unjust.
The court order also directs Surina to pay a money judgment, including past due child support, medical support, and children’s expenses, but the specific amounts are not listed. This lack of transparency could be viewed as unfair, particularly if Surina was not given a chance to contest these amounts or if they were determined without his input.
Sections regarding make-up parenting time and conditions for suspending jail time are marked as “does not apply,” implying that Surina is not being given opportunities for fair treatment. The conditions to correct (purge) the contempt are also unclear, potentially adding to the unfairness.
Lastly, the section labeled “Other orders (if any)” suggests an unresolved fraud claim against Aaron, leaving him in a state of limbo and potentially exacerbating the perceived injustice.
Overall, the document exhibits a series of potential biases and unfair practices against Aaron Surina, including a lack of transparency, unclear allegations, unjust financial obligations, and missed opportunities for fair treatment.
About The Author
