Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/462.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2021-02-23 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2021-02-23
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The court documents collectively reveal potential bias, unjust restrictions, and potential unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, the respondent father, in a case involving his children.
Sirinya Surina, the mother, appears to use her lack of English proficiency to delay proceedings, which could potentially disadvantage Aaron. Accusations against Aaron include alleged attempts to “kidnap” their sons and “interference,” both of which lack substantial evidence, potentially tarnishing his reputation. Further, claims regarding late and improper service of court notice seem to unfairly paint Aaron in an unfavorable light, despite the possibility of these being administrative errors beyond his control.
Despite no evidence of neglect, abandonment, or abuse, the court has placed undue limitations on Aaron’s parental rights, including decision-making authority over his children’s schooling, healthcare, and extracurricular activities. Sirinya Surina is designated as the sole custodian, disregarding the children’s right to benefit from both parents’ input and Aaron’s right to participate in his children’s lives.
The parenting time schedule is skewed against Aaron, with most of the children’s time allocated to Sirinya. The children primarily reside with Sirinya, disrupting their routine and potentially causing instability. The holiday schedules and transportation arrangements appear to disproportionately favor Sirinya, possibly limiting Aaron’s time with his children.
Further potential bias is evidenced by the court’s preference for litigation over mediation, arbitration, or counseling for dispute resolution. This approach could be intimidating for Aaron, who already faces an apparent bias in court.
The court’s rules around moving with the children could unfavorably impact Aaron, particularly the provisions allowing for short notice or delayed notice, which could hinder his ability to rearrange his schedule or contest the move.
Moreover, the court mandates the use of the online platform “OurFamilyWizard” for all parental communication, which could be seen as restrictive. The court also restricts telephone contact between the children and the non-residential parent, potentially limiting Aaron’s ability to maintain a regular relationship with his children.
Restrictions imposed by the court, including a restraining order and the prohibition of any disparaging remarks about the other parent, could be seen as significant infringements on Aaron’s rights. Moreover, the stringent limit of 5 minutes for him to drop off the children at their mother’s residence seems exceedingly restrictive and indicative of bias.
Finally, the court order’s harsh tone and severe consequences warned of could be perceived as intimidating and biased against Mr. Surina.
Overall, the documents reflect potential bias against Aaron Surina, with several aspects of the agreement potentially limiting his time with his children and his ability to communicate effectively with their mother. The fairness and transparency of the process are questionable, and the potential imbalance in the presentation and consideration of each party’s interests, especially given Aaron’s self-representation, could lead to an unfair outcome.
About The Author
