Document: PETITION MOTION TO MODIFY
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/568.0 PETITION MOTION TO MODIFY 2024-03-01 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2024-03-01
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: PETITION MOTION TO MODIFY
The court documents reveal an apparent disparity, with the father, Aaron Surina, facing multiple challenges in his quest to protect his children. Surina believes the current parenting/custody order is unjust, not in the best interest of his children, and possibly a result of bias in the legal proceedings. He asserts that the initial parenting plan was never intended to be a final parentage order, as unresolved issues were meant to be reviewed according to the order dated December 20, 2019.
Despite his consistent efforts to comply with court-ordered evaluations, treatments, and classes, Surina has faced repeated violations of court orders by the petitioner, including custodial interference and denial of his lawful, court-ordered time with the children. Despite these violations, the court has not made significant adjustments favoring Surina, hinting at a possible bias and unfairness.
Adding to Surina’s burden, the mother has persistently refused to contribute to healthcare costs despite being legally obliged to do so. This disregard for court orders not only places an unfair financial strain on Surina but also shows a troubling lack of respect for legal directives. His attempt to rectify this through a modification in decision-making and child support is met with the risk of rejection if the court does not agree to alter the parenting/custody order, a potential perpetuation of the financial injustice Surina is enduring.
The procedural aspects of the case also reveal potential areas of unfairness. Issues range from potential manipulation of jurisdiction over the children to the possibility of Surina being excluded from crucial court proceedings. The case was forwarded to Washington state without clear justification, and the document allows for changes to the parenting/custody order, child support order, and possibly a Protection or Restraining order without providing clear grounds or evidence.
Furthermore, the document allows the other parent to join the petition without requiring them to be notified about the court’s hearings or decisions. These irregularities, if misused, could disadvantage Surina, infringing on his legal rights as a parent.
In summary, Aaron Surina’s case reveals a string of potential injustices, including bias, unethical conduct, financial burden, and procedural irregularities. Despite these challenges, Surina remains committed to protecting his children and rectifying the perceived unfairness in the existing order.
About The Author
