Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/282.0 MOTION 2019-06-07 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-07
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: MOTION
The court documents associated with Aaron Surina’s case reveal numerous potential injustices. A concerning aspect involves a motion for an Immediate Restraining Order (Ex Parte) filed against Aaron. Initiated without his presence or potential awareness, this infringes on Aaron’s right to present his side of the story, thereby compromising the fairness of the proceedings.
The documents lack specific details or evidence of harm where Aaron is concerned, further indicative of potential bias. Moreover, should the court grant this order without notifying Aaron, it unfairly places an additional burden on him to file a motion to change or terminate it.
The request for this immediate restraining order also seeks to prevent Aaron from entering his own home, workplace, or school, and the daycare or school of his child. This measure, coupled with the implied negative assumption about Aaron’s behavior and a restriction preventing him from taking his children out of Washington State, could unfairly limit his rights as a parent.
The proposed orders also suggest potential weapon restrictions against Aaron without any stated justification, infringing on his constitutional rights. This, along with other requests made unilaterally without considering Aaron’s rights or perspective, indicates potential bias and unfairness in these proceedings.
The documents also propose appointing a person, either a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or Evaluator/Investigator, to investigate and report on the children’s best interests. However, the lack of clarity regarding Aaron’s input in this process may lead to potential bias.
Potential financial obligations, such as child support, spousal support, household expenses, division of debts, and insurance premiums, are stipulated without specifying who will be responsible for each, potentially leading to unjust burdens on Aaron.
The proposal to order Aaron or his spouse/domestic partner to move out of the family home, without considering Aaron’s circumstances, could be seen as an unfair action. Furthermore, the court considers ordering Aaron’s spouse/domestic partner to pay his legal fees, but the decision-making process lacks clarity and fairness.
Lastly, the document warns about the public availability of court documents, potentially infringing on Aaron’s privacy. The lack of clarity whether due process has been followed and if sensitive documents have been sealed raises concerns about the respect for Aaron’s rights to confidentiality.
In sum, the lack of transparency, consideration of Aaron’s perspective, and potential infringement on his rights suggest a biased and potentially unethical process against Aaron Surina.
About The Author
