Document: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/31.0 CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED 2017-09-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2017-09-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The proposed child support worksheet presents a series of elements that, when examined from Aaron Surina’s perspective, appear to be discriminatory and unjust. There is a significant concern regarding the imputed income assigned to Aaron, which is marked at $1,906. This figure seems arbitrary and may not accurately reflect his financial capabilities.
Additionally, the document reveals a considerable disparity between the basic child support obligations of both parents. Aaron is expected to pay $1,453, a sum significantly higher than the $363 assigned to Sirinya Surina, the mother. This discrepancy fails to take into account the proportional income of both parents and disproportionately burdens Aaron.
Moreover, the document indicates that Aaron is solely responsible for both day care and special expenses, totaling to $1,070.70 and $524 respectively, without any contribution from Sirinya. This further piles financial burdens on Aaron.
In the calculation of gross child support obligation, Aaron’s assigned figure is $2,728.76, far greater than the $681.94 obligation of Sirinya. This vast difference, without clear explanation or justification, appears as a manifestation of bias.
Furthermore, the standard calculation for child support is higher for Aaron than for Sirinya, hinting at a disregard for his financial circumstances. The worksheet also calculates 45% of each parent’s net income, which in Aaron’s case is significantly lower, indicating an unfair system that does not consider the financial burdens of the lower-earning parent.
The worksheet lacks clear visibility into the division of household assets or debt and fails to account for income from current spouses or domestic partners, other adults in the household, or income from child support. This omission could influence the fair determination of child support.
Lastly, the worksheet, certified by the State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts, seems to employ a one-size-fits-all approach without any specific considerations for Aaron’s unique circumstances. This approach, coupled with the potential for information misuse due to allowed photocopying, raises serious concerns about privacy and fairness.
In conclusion, the child support worksheet appears to be inherently biased against Aaron, the lower-earning parent, and could unjustly impose a severe financial burden on him. This could be interpreted as unethical and biased conduct on the part of the attorneys Stanley Kempner and Keith Glanzer or anyone else representing Sirinya Surina, Carl Wilson, or Keith Glanzer.
About The Author
