Document: TEMP ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/55.0 TEMP ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT 2017-09-28 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2017-09-28
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: TEMP ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT
The court documents in the child support case involving Aaron Surina and his spouse, Sirinya Polraj Surina, indicate a potential bias against Aaron. The court mandates Aaron to pay child support based on his ‘actual income’, including income from a currently suspended second job, suggesting an overestimation of his financial capabilities.
Conversely, Sirinya’s monthly net income is ‘imputed’, basing Aaron’s child support payments on his actual income, while calculating Sirinya’s potential income leniently. The court approves the Child Support Schedule Worksheets without providing a clear breakdown of the support amount, denying Aaron transparency and a fair chance to contest. This lack of detail creates a sense of opacity in the court’s decision-making process, which might be interpreted as a bias against Aaron.
The court appears to enforce an unreasonably high monthly child support amount on Aaron, ignoring his potential financial constraints. The court grants enforcement through income withholding without providing adequate notice to Aaron, which infringes on his rights. The document allows for post-secondary educational support requests without a substantial change of circumstances, potentially increasing Aaron’s financial burden.
The court fails to provide clear instructions on claiming the children as dependents on tax forms and sufficient information on health insurance provisions for the children, leaving Aaron with uncertainty about his obligations and potential liabilities.
Aaron is obligated to secure insurance through his work or union, contribute to the other parent’s monthly premium, or pay his share of the cost of public health care coverage. The division of uninsured medical expenses is unclear, potentially placing an undue burden on Mr. Surina. If the court did not consider the circumstances surrounding past due child support, this could be viewed as unjust.
The child support order seems to be approved without considering Mr. Surina’s financial situation, leading to a potentially biased outcome. The document warns of severe penalties for non-compliance, which could be viewed as intimidating if Mr. Surina is unable to meet these financial obligations.
The documents infringe on Aaron’s rights as a father, emphasizing that Aaron must prove his children are covered by health insurance and that failure to produce this proof grants the other parent or support agency the right to contact his employer or union directly for enforcement of this order. This provision is potentially intrusive and invades Aaron’s privacy.
If Aaron fails to provide the required proof of insurance, the other parent has the right to request help from the DCS, ask the court for a contempt order, or file a petition in court. The document warns Aaron not to cancel his children’s health insurance without the court’s approval, even if his employment ends, which seems unfair if Aaron’s financial circumstances change.
The stipulation that the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife may suspend or refuse to issue Aaron’s fishing and hunting licenses, impacting his recreational or subsistence activities, is punitive and unrelated to his ability to support his children. This further underscores the potential unfairness in the court’s orders.
Overall, the court documents seem to present a potential bias against Mr. Surina, placing a disproportionate financial burden on him without clear consideration of his circumstances.
About The Author
