Document: TEMPORARY FAMILY LAW ORDER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/281.0 TEMPORARY FAMILY LAW ORDER 2019-06-07 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-07
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY FAMILY LAW ORDER
The Temporary Family Law Order in the Surina marital case, filed in the Superior Court of Washington, County of Spokane, presents several potential areas of concern for Aaron Surina. A significant financial burden is placed on Mr. Surina, despite the absence of a court-ordered money judgment. It’s noted that Mr. Surina has voluntarily agreed to offer financial assistance to Sirinya Polarj, the children’s mother, amounting to $500 per month to facilitate her in establishing a stable residence over the next six months. This agreement, although voluntary, might potentially be used against Mr. Surina in future proceedings.
The order also restricts Aaron’s freedom to travel internationally with his children without a notarized agreement, a provision that seems to neglect his rights. Additionally, the order fails to address any arrangements for Aaron’s continued stay in the family home or his right to use property.
The court has instructed that neither party can sell or dispose of any property, a directive that indiscriminately impacts both jointly owned and individually owned properties, potentially infringing on Mr. Surina’s rights to his assets and limiting his financial flexibility. Furthermore, the failure to specify responsibility for household expenses and debts could lead to financial strain and disputes, possibly disadvantaging Mr. Surina.
The order’s instruction on maintaining current insurance policies without alterations could unjustly limit Mr. Surina’s control over his personal financial and insurance decisions. The mention of a potential restraining order without any clarification regarding its applicability or reasons also raises concerns about the due process for Mr. Surina.
While the document doesn’t explicitly exhibit direct acts of unethical conduct or bias, the lack of specific provisions safeguarding Mr. Surina’s interests, combined with the imposition of certain restrictions, could be perceived as an imbalance against him. This summary highlights numerous potential instances of unfairness, bias, and restrictions on Mr. Surina’s financial independence and personal rights, warranting further scrutiny.
About The Author
