Document: PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/574.0 PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS 2024-03-01 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2024-03-01
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The large court document, a proposed order for a case concerning changes to a parenting plan or custody order, suggests potential bias and unfairness against Aaron Surina. The document lacks essential details such as dates, names, and specifics of circumstances, indicating possible hasty or inadequate court proceedings. The decision to hear the petition to change the parenting plan or custody order lacks explicit reasoning, suggesting a lack of transparency. Furthermore, the document doesn’t clarify the basis of this decision or specify the applied jurisdiction, which could imply bias.
The court proposes a significant change to the parenting order, potentially biased against Aaron Surina. Although the change is based on claims of a substantial alteration in circumstances, there is no clear explanation or evidence supporting these claims. The approval of this change seems unfairly weighted on the assertion that the petitioner can provide better for the children, without any substantiating evidence or indication of Surina’s incapacity to meet his children’s needs. Despite repeated contempt of court orders by the other parent, the court still approves a major change to the parenting order, which may be seen as unjust.
The proposed revisions to the parenting order restrict Surina’s time with his children considerably, despite significant changes in his situation and meeting all court-ordered requirements. The court assumes Surina’s lack of involvement with his children based on no concrete evidence and considers changing child support without any changes in custody, potentially burdening him financially. Despite no requests for restraining orders, the court remains restrictive towards Surina’s parenting time.
The court’s decision to approve the Petition to Change a Parenting Plan or Custody, terminating all temporary orders, appears biased against Surina. It neglects to specify any concrete reasons or evidence against him, which could be deemed as unethical conduct. The court may have approved these changes without providing Surina with adequate notice or opportunity to present his case, which could violate his rights to fair hearing and due process. A temporary Restraining Order, limiting Surina’s access to his child, was upheld despite no final restraining order. This suggests potential infringement on Aaron’s rights as a father. The discharge of the guardian ad litem potentially deprives Aaron of a key advocate, further suggesting bias against him. These decisions, reflected in the court documents, imply prejudiced treatment against Aaron, raising questions about the fairness of the court proceedings.
About The Author
