Document: PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/379.0 PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS 2020-06-10 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-06-10
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS
Based on the court documents, there appears to be a consistent pattern of bias and potential unfairness against Aaron Surina during the divorce proceedings.
In matters of property division, an evident inequity is seen as Aaron, despite owning property before the marriage, has not received any of his separate property (Exhibit H). This indicates an uneven distribution of assets, unfairly disadvantaging Aaron.
The court further burdens Aaron with all debts since the date of separation, a decision that seems to be an indiscriminate assumption rather than a nuanced consideration of the nature or purpose of these debts.
In relation to child-related decisions, the court imposed an excessive bond of $155,000 per child for potential out-of-country travels, citing unverified abduction threats by the petitioner. This decision seems unjustly punitive, infringing on Aaron’s parental rights and freedoms.
Despite Aaron’s willingness to support his children financially, the court inexplicably waived the petitioner’s child support obligation as stated in a final decree by Thailand. This decision neglects Aaron’s financial contributions, favoring the petitioner unilaterally.
The court’s final parenting plan, requiring a review by 12/19/2020, leaves Aaron vulnerable to further potential bias with its ambiguous mandate to “fix what is not working”.
Furthermore, the court appears to disregard Aaron’s professional circumstances, offering no allowances for his reduced workforce status and desired role switch. Even though Aaron lodged a formal objection under 42 USC 1301(d) and requested a conference on June 8, 2019, it remains unclear whether these requests have been duly considered.
Aaron is allowed to claim his children as dependents on his tax forms until they turn 18. However, the court’s failure to order post-secondary support for the children may impose an additional financial burden on him, especially considering his current employment uncertainty.
Lastly, the court’s order for a review in 1 year from the Final Ruling of November 27, 2019, lacks clarity and transparency, risking potential bias or unfairness against Aaron.
In summary, the court documents suggest a significant bias against Aaron Surina, with decisions that seem to favor the petitioner, overlook his financial contributions and rights as a parent and ex-spouse, and disregard his financial and professional hardships. This lack of fairness and consideration for Aaron’s rights and circumstances in the proceedings is concerning and warrants closer scrutiny.
About The Author
