Document: PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/341.0 PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN 2019-12-20 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-12-20
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Combined Summary:
The Proposed Parenting Plan appears to demonstrate a clear bias against the father, Aaron Surina, infringing upon his parental rights and raising concerns about the ethical conduct of the proceedings. Despite the absence of any evidence of neglect or abuse, the court has unjustly imposed limitations on Mr. Surina, attributing this to the “abusive use of conflict,” but failing to provide concrete instances supporting this claim.
The court has granted Sirinya Surina, the mother, sole authority over major decisions concerning the children’s schooling, healthcare, and extracurricular activities, which undermines the principle of co-parenting and overlooks the importance of the involvement of both parents in decisions affecting their children’s lives. Moreover, the court’s reliance on verbatim transcripts over written orders leaves room for misinterpretations and potential misapplications of the law, potentially compromising Mr. Surina’s rights further.
The parenting plan also restricts Mr. Surina’s time with his children, limiting him to partial parenting time on a rotational basis, while assigning Sirinya Surina as the sole custodian for the purposes of all state and federal statutes. The dispute resolution process also seems skewed in favor of the mother, requiring court involvement in the event of disagreements without providing the option for mediation, arbitration, or counseling.
The document further imposes an undue burden on Mr. Surina by requiring him to provide all transportation for visitation exchanges and limiting these exchanges to a mere five minutes with a strict no communication rule. The relocation clause potentially jeopardizes Mr. Surina’s relationship with his children by allowing the custodial parent to move the children to a different school district with minimal notice.
The holiday scheduling and summer arrangement appear to favor the mother, with the children residing with Sirinya during the first and last week of every summer and an unclear distribution of holidays. The document’s stipulation to communicate exclusively through the Our Family Wizard website, the restraining order limiting Mr. Surina’s communication and proximity to the mother, and the suspension of telephone contact between the children and the non-visiting parent all seem to unfairly impede Mr. Surina’s ability to maintain a strong relationship with his children.
Lastly, the court’s decision to adopt the statements in section 3, which impose limitations on Mr. Surina without providing explicit justification, and the lack of requirement for the mother to formally notify the father about a relocation within the same school district may be perceived as biased and unjust.
Given that Mr. Surina is self-represented in these proceedings, the above issues could potentially lead to an unfair balance of power and compromise his ability to fully comprehend the legal implications of the parenting plan. This summary highlights the need for further investigation into potential instances of unethical conduct, judicial bias, and injustices against Mr. Surina.
About The Author
