Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/516.0 MOTION 2023-08-03 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-08-03
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The document collectively explores the case of Surina v Surina, where Aaron Surina, the respondent, is contesting a motion for judgment against him due to non-compliance with an income withholding order, which has resulted in an outstanding debt of approximately $8,000 accrued from 2020 to 2022. Mr. Surina has been unfairly penalized due to his previous employer’s failure to comply with the income withholding order issued by the Washington Department of Child Support (WA DCS).
Throughout this ordeal, Mr. Surina was never notified of the increasing arrears, despite ongoing correspondence between his employer and the DCS. He was under the belief that his child support was being automatically deducted by his employer and managed by the support enforcement agency. He empathetically claims that the law holds the employer 100% liable for the money owed to the petitioner (his ex-spouse).
The unfair judgment against Mr. Surina, due to the lack of communication and oversight by the DCS and his employer, has resulted in a significant financial burden and potential reputational damage. This judgment reflects an absence of due process, causing potentially unjust consequences for Mr. Surina, a committed father who has been wrongfully denied the opportunity to fulfill his child support obligations, causing him significant financial hardship and emotional distress.
The documents also highlight the impact on Mr. Surina’s children, who have been deprived of necessary financial support. Yet, the court documents do not indicate any action taken against the employer for their failure to uphold their legal obligations, suggesting a bias against Mr. Surina.
Mr. Surina is respectfully requesting the court to intervene and asking for a judgment against his employer to immediately pay the arrears to the Petitioner, for his previous employer to comply with the Income Withholding Order henceforth, and for any further relief the court deems just. The lack of immediate action and resolution to Mr. Surina’s predicament could be viewed as an injustice, exacerbating his emotional distress.
The documents also reveal a potential bias against Mr. Surina by assigning an undue burden on his wage through an income withholding order that could potentially leave him with insufficient funds for his own living expenses. The severity of the penalties for non-compliance with the wage assignment or income withholding order, combined with the prioritization of deductions for child support, indicate an unjust bias against Mr. Surina, leading to potential financial hardship.
In essence, the court documents seem to overlook the principle of fairness in their treatment of Aaron Surina, focusing more on punitive measures rather than ensuring a fair and balanced approach to child support and maintenance payments.
About The Author
