Document: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/48.0 CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED 2017-09-26 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2017-09-26
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The court documents relating to child support exhibit an apparent bias against Aaron Surina, leading to potentially unfair and ethically questionable outcomes. Despite the significant difference in the gross monthly incomes of Aaron and Sirinya Surina, the Basic Child Support Obligation for both of their children, David and Andrew, is set at an equal amount, seemingly disregarding the parents’ disparate incomes. Moreover, the document does not take into account low-income limitations which results in Aaron shouldering a disproportionately larger financial burden.
A lack of transparency in the document raises further concerns of possible injustice. The standard calculation for child support is listed, but without any clear explanation of the underlying calculations, potentially resulting in unfairly inflated obligations for Aaron. The proceedings also seem to penalize Aaron for his additional work hours, including second jobs and overtime, and take into account the income of other adults in the household, such as a current spouse or domestic partner, which could lead to an inflated estimate of Aaron’s household income and consequently, an increased child support obligation.
The document’s request for information about household assets, debts, and child support owed for other biological or legal children may further skew the financial picture against Aaron. Responsible financial management, such as savings or investments, may be penalized, and having other children to support could unjustly influence the court’s decision on Aaron’s financial obligations.
The omission of shared healthcare, day care, and special child-rearing expenses from the calculations could further strain Aaron’s finances, as these significant costs should ideally be shared between both parents.
Lastly, the requirement for a parent’s signature under the penalty of perjury, without clear instructions and transparency, could potentially coerce Aaron into agreeing to unfavorable terms, a practice that could be viewed as unethical.
In conclusion, the child support worksheet-proposal appears to unfairly and disproportionately burden Aaron Surina, without clear justification or transparency in the calculations. These practices raise concerns about possible bias, unfairness, and unethical conduct in the handling of this case.
About The Author
