Document: PARENTING PLAN FINAL ORDER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/349.0 PARENTING PLAN FINAL ORDER 2019-12-20 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-12-20
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The court documents regarding the parenting plan final order appear to reflect a consistent pattern of bias and potential unfairness against Aaron Surina. Despite vague allegations of Mr. Surina involving his minor children in conflicts with their mother, Sirinya Surina, the court has imposed limitations on Mr. Surina’s parental rights without providing specific instances or evidence of this behavior. This includes granting Sirinya Surina exclusive authority over significant decisions about the children’s lives, which could be perceived as sidelining Mr. Surina from crucial aspects of his children’s upbringing.
The documents show a parenting schedule that heavily favors Sirinya, with ambiguous arrangements for winter break and biased allocation of holiday time. The schedule suggests that Aaron’s time with his children is conditional on the schedule, rather than a given right. The summer schedule and several significant holidays are predetermined to be spent with Sirinya, which could be seen as unfair allocation of quality time.
The court documents also impose numerous restrictions on Mr. Surina’s freedom of movement and communication with his children and Sirinya. These restrictions include a requirement to use the Family Wizard platform for all communications, an absolute ban on telephone contact between Mr. Surina and his children when they are not in his care, and a requirement to respond within a 48-hour period to any action or decision, which could unduly pressurize him into making decisions without adequate time for independent advice.
The documents also give the custodial parent the right to relocate the children to a different school district after serving a Notice of Intent to Move. If no objection is filed within 30 days, the custodian can relocate the children without obtaining a court order. This could potentially infringe upon Mr. Surina’s rights, disrupting his relationship with his children.
The court order’s lack of transparency and apparent dismissal of Mr. Surina’s self-represented position suggest potential bias and unethical conduct in the proceedings. The court’s findings seem to be based on statements without detailed evidence or reasoning, resulting in limitations on Mr. Surina’s parental rights that may not be in the best interest of the children. This apparent bias against Mr. Surina, coupled with the numerous restrictions placed on his freedoms, suggests a troubling imbalance in power that undermines his rights as a father and his ability to maintain a consistent and meaningful relationship with his children.
About The Author
