Document: MEMORANDUM
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/329.0 MEMORANDUM 2019-08-12 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-08-12
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: MEMORANDUM
The memorandum pertaining to the divorce case between Sirinya Surina and Aaron Michael Surina reveals a concerning bias against Mr. Surina, who has been unjustly portrayed as a disruptive and controlling father without substantial corroborating evidence. Despite the dissolution of marriage being initiated by Ms. Surina, the court granted a swift restraining order against Mr. Surina, issued temporary orders placing the children primarily under Ms. Surina’s care, and limited Mr. Surina’s contact with his children.
These limitations on Mr. Surina’s parental rights were enforced through a restraining order that only allowed written communication about the children. Any attempts by Mr. Surina to discuss changes in his children’s care were met with accusations of an “abuse of power” and trickery. This unjust portrayal of Mr. Surina seems to be based on hearsay rather than concrete proof.
Moreover, the memorandum argues against joint custody, claiming that it is not in the children’s best interests, without acknowledging Mr. Surina’s efforts to maintain a relationship with his children. It cites research suggesting that joint physical custody can harm children in high-conflict situations, a generalized argument that fails to consider the unique needs and circumstances of Mr. Surina’s family.
Mr. Surina’s concerns for his children’s wellbeing, as shown by his requests for well-child checks and Child Protective Services complaints, were seemingly dismissed. His accusations of child molestation by a friend and financial supporter of Ms. Surina were also disregarded, with the court admonishing him and imposing sanctions and contempt charges amounting to approximately $35,000 for allegedly failing to comply with court orders.
The document further unfairly characterizes Mr. Surina as being “extremely rigid,” “very litigious,” and “emotionally un-divorced,” using these subjective characterizations as a basis to deny his request for shared custody. It references an alleged history of domestic violence without providing substantial proof, which is unjust and could be seen as unethical.
Overall, the document demonstrates a clear bias against Mr. Surina, potentially depriving him of his rightful opportunity to share in the upbringing of his children. This series of events suggests potential bias, unfair treatment, and possible injustices towards Mr. Surina in the court proceedings.
About The Author
