Document: PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/508.0 PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN 2023-07-18 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-07-18
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN
The proposed parenting plan seems to be unjust and potentially biased against Aaron Surina, the respondent, in several ways. Despite having no clear evidence of misconduct or harmful behavior, Aaron is portrayed as neglectful towards his children’s educational, emotional, and healthcare needs due to work obligations. He is also accused of exposing his children to an inappropriate environment without any supportive context or incidents. The decision-making process appears skewed against Aaron, hinting at a potential disparity in parental rights and responsibilities.
The parenting schedule outlined is rigid, with a strict 50/50 week on/week off rotation that disregards the children’s school schedules or seasons. This lack of flexibility could potentially harm Aaron’s relationship with his children. The structure of school holidays and special dates is vague, leading to potential misuse and an uneven distribution of time and influence over the children.
The document also implies that changes to the parenting plan must be agreed upon by both parents in writing via the court-approved app, a requirement that could be manipulated against Aaron. The provision for ‘lost weekends’ due to holiday schedules, the split weekend schedule, and the arrangement for family birthdays seem to favor the mother, potentially allowing her to influence the children’s experiences more than Aaron.
The document places an undue burden on Aaron to continually monitor the custodian’s actions or potentially lose his ability to object to significant changes affecting his children. It also seems to favor the custodian with lenient relocation provisions, potentially disrupting Aaron’s access and relationship with his children. The incomplete section about international travel restrictions leaves Aaron in a state of uncertainty about his rights and obligations.
The document also exhibits potential bias with stipulations such as a hefty fee for hiring agents to return the children to America, the “First Right of Refusal” clause, and the vague transportation cost responsibilities. These could pose significant financial burdens and infringe on Aaron’s freedom and flexibility. The absence of a connection between child support and visitation rights could leave Aaron vulnerable to potential exploitation or manipulation.
Overall, the proposed parenting plan seems to lack fairness and clear protections for Aaron, potentially leading to unjust situations, financial burden, and lack of flexibility in his parenting rights. The absence of specific violations or non-compliance from the other parent, and the lack of a process for dealing with disagreements or violations, could suggest potential bias against Aaron. The document does not address potential power imbalances or manipulative behavior, which could be problematic for Aaron if the other parent is uncooperative or violates the agreement.
About The Author
