Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/387.0 MOTION 2020-08-24 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-08-24
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
Aaron Surina, the self-represented respondent in the Surina Dissolution case, has raised concerns over the potential bias and unethical conduct in the legal proceedings. He argues that the court orders issued after hours on December 20, 2019, deviate from the court’s oral rulings from November of the same year, which he believes were improperly drafted and signed without a proper hearing. Mr. Surina fears that the proposed changes to the current 50/50 parenting plan, which has been instrumental in the family’s healing process, will disrupt not only the parents’ obligations but also the children’s education and recovery.
Furthermore, Surina finds the children’s inability to communicate with their local friends and family members unnecessarily restrictive and unfair. He contends that the proposed changes to the parenting plan and the court’s actions, particularly the issuing of hastily drafted orders without a hearing, reflect a disregard for his rights and the welfare of the children.
Moreover, the court document presented by Preston A. Findlay of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) appears biased against Surina. The document seems to paint Surina as a potential abductor without presenting any substantial evidence or his side of the story. It also suggests preventive measures against parental abductions, implying a presumption of guilt against Surina. The document’s “red flag” indicators of abduction risk could be seen as an attempt to build a prejudiced case against the father.
The court documents also broadly categorize Surina’s actions and motivations without considering his individual circumstances. They imply that Surina is planning to abduct his child due to his strong ties to another country and his feeling of disenfranchisement from the legal system. However, these assumptions seem to be based solely on Surina’s background and personal feelings, rather than any verified actions or intentions.
The documents also suggest that Surina is disadvantaged and potentially unrepresented in the case of international child abduction. The Thai Central Authority (TCA) does not represent parents like Surina in court nor appoint a private attorney for them. The document also advises left-behind parents to consider hiring an attorney, which could put an additional financial and emotional burden on Surina.
Additionally, the document indicates an inherent bias in the system, as it heavily relies on the goodwill of the taking parent, rather than legal justice, for resolution. This bias could potentially deny Aaron his rightful access to his child.
Finally, the school progress reports for Aaron Surina’s child, David, do not show any evidence of unfairness, unethical conduct, or bias against Surina. However, any potential injustices or bias against Aaron Surina would need to be extrapolated from additional documents or background information not provided in these reports.
Overall, the various documents suggest a potential bias and unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, raising questions about the fairness of the system.
About The Author
