Document: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/54.0 CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET 2017-09-28 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2017-09-28
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET
The court documents related to child support appear to demonstrate a potential bias against the father, Aaron Michael Surina, by disproportionately burdening him with financial obligations. Aaron’s gross monthly income, significantly higher than Sirinya’s, is reported as $9,798 while hers is imputed at a mere $1,906. This discrepancy is neither explained nor justified.
Furthermore, the deductions from Aaron’s gross income, including taxes and social security payments, total $4,837.06, a stark contrast to Sirinya’s deductions totaling only $145.81. This significant difference further amplifies the financial burden on Aaron.
The document proposes a basic child support obligation for each child, with Aaron expected to shoulder a substantial amount compared to Sirinya, seemingly without considering the considerable deductions from Aaron’s income. Moreover, the calculation of each parent’s basic child support obligation is conducted without consideration of low-income limitations, an approach that appears unfair and unethical.
Additionally, the Child Support Worksheet implies a potential disparity in financial burdens, with Aaron’s child support obligation calculated at a hefty $3,022.28, a stark contrast to Sirinya’s obligation of $792.09. The document also exhibits a lack of transparency and clarity, particularly in the section on Child Support Credits. Here, Aaron’s potential credits for Monthly Health Care Expenses, Day Care, Special Expenses, and Other Ordinary Expenses are absent. This omission might be seen as an unjust disadvantage if Aaron is indeed incurring these costs.
Moreover, the worksheet fails to account for Aaron’s household debt and assets, both of which could significantly influence the calculation of the child support obligation. The document also overlooks the income of other adults in Aaron’s household, as well as income from his overtime or second jobs, which could significantly impact his net income and ability to meet the child support obligation.
In summary, these points collectively suggest potential judicial bias or unethical conduct against Aaron in the calculation of the child support obligation. The lack of clarity, transparency, and fairness in the document, coupled with the unexplained and unjustified discrepancies, indicate a possible bias against Aaron, placing an undue financial burden on him.
About The Author
