Document: PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/475.0 PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN 2023-06-08 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-06-08
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The proposed parenting plan presents numerous instances of potential bias and unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, the father. The restrictions on Aaron’s parenting rights are based on unspecified allegations without clear evidence or details, raising questions about the fairness of these limitations. The mother’s refusal to co-parent and her denial of phone calls to the father is distressing for the children and undermines Aaron’s ability to maintain a healthy relationship with them. Despite these concerns, the court has not addressed the mother’s harmful conduct.
The court also places the entire responsibility of the children’s welfare, education, health, and general upbringing on Aaron’s shoulders, effectively isolating him. The visitation schedule is unbalanced, favoring the mother despite Aaron having primary custody.
The proposed parenting plan unfairly limits Aaron’s time with his children during significant family-oriented holidays. The travel restrictions and the first right of refusal clause seem unfair to Aaron. The relocation clause could potentially disrupt the children’s lives and Aaron’s relationship with them.
The court document also presents several issues that may indicate potential unfairness and ethical concerns. The rules around the custodian’s right to move with the children could disrupt Aaron’s visitation schedule. The document lacks clarity and fairness in the event of the custodian serving a proposed Parenting Plan alongside the Notice of Intent to Move. The financial burden of hiring abduction and return agents in case of potential child abduction might disproportionately affect Aaron’s rights, especially if he is not the primary custodian.
The requirement for pick-up and drop-offs to occur at a police station if parents cannot agree on a location suggests a lack of trust in Aaron. The stipulation that parents must inform each other of any changes to the planned schedule 24 hours in advance could be seen as rigid. The plan requires both parents to have “reasonable” telephone contact with the child when they are with the other parent but doesn’t define what “reasonable” means, leaving room for disagreement and potential bias against Aaron.
The unlimited telephonic access to the child could potentially be exploited by the mother to interfere with the father-child relationship. The move-away injunction clause does not specify a distance limit for either parent to move, potentially enabling the mother to relocate at will, causing considerable hardship for Aaron’s visitation rights. The plan seems to lack provisions for maintaining a balanced and fair relationship between both parents, which could potentially be exploited to the detriment of Aaron’s interests and relationship with his children.
Overall, the proposed parenting plan seems to be unjust and potentially biased against Aaron Surina, limiting his time with his children and allowing for potential exploitation of clauses that could further estrange him from his children.
About The Author
