Document: ORDER FOR SUPPORT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/351.0 ORDER FOR SUPPORT 2019-12-20 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-12-20
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
The “Order for Support” issued by the Superior Court of Washington, County of Spokane in the marital dissolution case of Aaron Michael Surina and Sirinya Surina contains several instances of perceived unfairness, bias, and potentially unethical conduct against Mr. Surina.
The court, without any provided evidence of Mrs. Surina’s inability to earn a higher income, imputes her income, thereby potentially inflating Mr. Surina’s corresponding child support obligation. It uses his actual income while assigning Mrs. Surina a potentially lower income, which could be seen as bias.
Furthermore, the court mandates Mr. Surina to pay Mrs. Surina a seemingly arbitrarily high child support amount, regardless of the equal time spent by children with both parents during the summer months. The enforcement of this order is through extreme measures like income withholding or garnishment, without considering any potential good reasons to delay this withholding, which can be seen as a breach of due process. The lack of a specific periodic adjustment schedule for the child support could potentially lead to further financial instability for Mr. Surina.
In addition, the court has not clarified who should provide health insurance for the children, potentially burdening Mr. Surina with the responsibility. Also, Mr. Surina is responsible for paying a hefty 77% of uninsured medical expenses. This, along with his right to claim his children as dependents being contingent on the mother’s benefit through the tax code, seems unfair.
The proportional share of each parent’s percentage share of the combined net income is not clearly explained, potentially leading to an unjust financial burden on Mr. Surina. The order neglects to address any past due amounts or interest owed, disregarding any potential past financial injustices faced by Mr. Surina.
The document includes severe warnings against non-compliance, such as the suspension of licenses, and doesn’t stipulate any penalties for non-compliance by the other parent regarding the children’s health insurance status, potentially burdening Mr. Surina unfairly.
Moreover, Mr. Surina is self-represented in this case, possibly leading to a biased outcome in favor of the petitioner. The order also allows the other parent or support agency to contact his employer or union for direct enforcement without notifying him, potentially tarnishing his professional reputation unfairly.
Lastly, the order mandates Mr. Surina to keep his children’s health insurance active unless his job ends, and even then, he cannot cancel it without the court’s approval. If the children have public health care coverage, Mr. Surina could be made to pay for the cost of the monthly premium. This could result in double coverage and unnecessary financial burden, as the state already provides for the children’s health care.
In summary, the document appears to be heavily skewed against Mr. Surina, emphasizing his obligations rather than his rights, potentially indicating judicial bias and unfairness in the proceeding.
About The Author
