Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/519.0 MOTION 2023-08-29 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-08-29
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: MOTION
The court documents detail a case wherein Aaron Surina, the respondent, is compelled to seek immediate court intervention to halt the unilateral relocation and enrollment of his minor children, David and Andrew, by the petitioner, Sirinya Surina. Aaron’s emergency motion, filed in accordance with Washington State’s Rules of Civil Procedure and Spokane County local court rules, argues that his children’s relocation represents a significant modification of their parenting plan, necessitating evidence of a substantial change in circumstances.
Aaron insists that his children have a secure support network in their current school district and have expressed no desire to alter their social structure. He also expresses concerns regarding the petitioner’s flagrant disregard for a court order issued on June 23, 2023, which clearly stated that the children would not be relocated before a timely filed trial. In a seeming act of defiance, the petitioner relocated and listed their house for rent concurrently with the hearing.
Aaron emphasizes that he has complied with all local and state procedures, including paying all requisite fees to the clerk’s office, demonstrating his dedication to the legal process. He also identifies inconsistencies in the petitioner’s reasoning for the proposed relocation, suggesting it lacks mutual agreement and may not prioritize the children’s best interests.
Mr. Surina’s motion is an urgent plea to the court to protect the rights of his children and himself. Despite requesting an expedited hearing to address these pressing matters, it appears the court may not be giving his pleas and evidence the due consideration they warrant. Aaron’s efforts to prevent a potentially disruptive and unilateral decision that could adversely affect his children’s well-being and his relationship with them seemingly go unnoticed.
These actions by the petitioner, and the court’s seeming disregard for Aaron’s pleas, could be perceived as unethical, unjust, and potentially prejudiced. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of respect for the legal process and potentially jeopardizes the welfare and rights of both Aaron and his children. If this trend continues, it raises questions about the fairness of the court’s approach and the potential unethical conduct of those representing the petitioner.
About The Author
