Document: OBJECTION TO PETITION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/481.0 OBJECTION TO PETITION 2023-06-12 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-06-12
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: OBJECTION TO PETITION
The court documents contain a summons related to a petition by Sirinya Surina, proposing to relocate with the children and change the current parenting order. This summons could potentially lead to a default judgment against Aaron Surina, the father, if he fails to respond within strict deadlines, potentially imposing an unfair time pressure on him.
The instructions provided on how to respond are unclear, which may pose an additional challenge for Aaron, especially if he does not have easy access to legal representation. The requirement of using specific forms to respond, only available from certain sources, may also pose an additional barrier, potentially creating an unfair advantage.
Aaron is expected to accept the legal papers at an address on file, which may not consider his current living situation. This lack of consideration for his personal circumstances could reflect a bias against him. The potential for a default judgment could allow significant changes to his parental rights without fully considering his viewpoint.
The proposed relocation of his children could disrupt Aaron’s contact with them and potentially impact their physical, educational, and emotional development. The documents do not provide a clear comparison or evaluation of the quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the children in the current and proposed new locations.
The possibility of changing the current parenting/custody order raises concerns about potential bias against Mr. Surina, as the reasons for such a change are unclear. The documents also hint at a possible change in the child support order, potentially imposing an additional financial burden on Aaron.
The documents imply an unjustified presumption of potential threat by Aaron towards his children or others, discussing the possibility of a restraining order against him. There is a lack of clarity about the exact residences of the children in the past five years, and the identities of other individuals who may claim a legal right to spend time with the children are not specified.
The documents also refer to other court cases involving the children but do not provide sufficient details. This lack of transparency could lead to decisions based on incomplete or misinterpreted information.
In conclusion, the court documents appear to be biased against Mr. Surina, lacking in detailed consideration of the children’s best interests, and potentially imposing unjust financial and emotional burdens on him. The court processes seem to be weighted against him, raising serious concerns about the fairness and ethics of the proceedings.
About The Author
