Document: ORDER APPOINTING COUNSELOR
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l//79.0 ORDER APPOINTING COUNSELOR 2017-11-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2017-11-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
In the case of Aaron Surina vs. Sirinya Surina, the court’s Order Appointing Counselor reflects several instances of unfairness and potential unethical conduct that have negatively impacted Aaron and his son, David.
Firstly, the court’s decision to continue counseling for David with Zachary Zorrozua only if Sirinya Surina agrees, shows bias towards Sirinya’s preferences without considering the best interests of the child or the father’s input. This lack of impartiality raises concerns about the court’s commitment to ensuring a fair and just resolution for all parties involved.
Furthermore, the court’s requirement for the parties to mutually pick a new counselor who accepts their insurance, or have the court choose one if they cannot agree, places an undue burden on Aaron and potentially limits David’s access to necessary counseling services. This requirement seems to prioritize financial considerations over the child’s well-being, which is ethically questionable.
Additionally, the court’s dismissal of two counselors recommended by Aaron, solely based on their unfamiliarity to the court and insurance network status, raises questions about the court’s motives and commitment to providing David with the best possible care. This decision appears to be arbitrary and lacks a clear rationale, indicating potential bias or unfair treatment towards Aaron and his son.
Overall, the court’s handling of the counseling appointment in this case demonstrates a lack of fairness, potential bias towards one party, and a disregard for the well-being of the child involved. Aaron’s concerns about the unethical conduct and judicial bias evident in this order are valid, and it is crucial for the court to reevaluate its decisions to ensure a just outcome for all parties involved.
About The Author
