Document: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/255.0 DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT 2019-04-26 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-04-26
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Comprehensive Summary:
Aaron Surina, father of the minor children involved in the case, contends that he has been unfairly treated throughout the ongoing legal procedures. Surina highlights numerous instances of potential bias and unethical conduct, particularly in regard to his financial obligations and the handling of his private information.
Surina strongly opposes the allegations of contempt and requests for sanctions, including claims that he did not meet payment obligations for a Hyundai automobile and the family home’s mortgage as per the court’s Temporary Order of September 27, 2017. He asserts that he has not willfully violated court orders and provides evidence of a substantial decrease in his income since the Temporary Order was issued. From September 2017 to 2018, his income decreased by over $20,182.00, primarily due to changes in employment and the financial implications of the divorce.
Surina alleges that he has been unfairly burdened with maintaining two households on a reduced income, as the petitioner, his wife, has consistently refused to find employment. He also expresses concerns about her secretive behavior, including the unilateral granting of a Deed of Trust against their home to a person named Carl Wilson.
Regarding child support, Surina argues that the court has unjustly imposed a significant financial obligation on him. These expenses include health, dental, and vision insurance, private school tuition, car payments, utility bills, and the petitioner’s cell phone bill. He also highlights an uncapped expense structure, failure to pay which could result in threats, contempt motions, and demands for attorney fees. Surina notes the garnishment fee and a legal order fee on top of the $1,500 per month garnishment for child support. He was also required to pay 81% of the mediation costs, amounting to around $1,300.
The documents reveal a disparity in asset distribution between the two parents and potential bias in the child support calculation process. Despite his financial struggles, Surina is disproportionately burdened with child support and healthcare expenses. His gross income from overtime and second jobs was included in the calculations, potentially inflating his perceived income and financial capacity.
Surina also raises concerns about the court’s handling of his private information, including his income, deductions, and taxes. He alleges that the court documents lack provisions to keep his address confidential and fail to protect his financial privacy, potentially exposing him to misuse of this sensitive information. This could infringe on Surina’s privacy rights and suggest potential bias and unethical conduct.
Despite these challenges, Surina reiterates his commitment to his children’s well-being, having completed a recommended parenting program. He requests that the court rejects the petitioner’s Motion for Contempt and suggests postponing the distribution of community funds until after the full presentation of evidence at trial. He also argues against undergoing a CR 35 examination by a psychologist, suggesting it has been strategically timed to disadvantage him before the trial.
In summary, Aaron Surina presents a compelling picture of potential bias, unfairness, and unethical conduct. He contends that he has been subjected to an unjust financial burden, lack of transparency, and an invasion of his privacy rights, which collectively suggest a bias against him in the ongoing legal proceedings.
About The Author
