Document: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/140.0 CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED 2018-02-09 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-02-09
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED
The court documents concerning the child support case involving Aaron M. Surina exhibit several indications of bias and unfairness, potentially infringing on Mr. Surina’s rights. The Child Support Worksheet, which outlines the financial obligations of both parents, places a disproportionate financial burden on Mr. Surina, raising questions about the equitable division of responsibilities and potential judicial bias.
Despite earning a gross monthly income of $7,473, Mr. Surina is left with a net monthly income of only $2,261 after various deductions, including a hefty $3,025 in maintenance paid. This is starkly contrasted with the other parent’s net monthly income of $5,471, which includes the maintenance received from Mr. Surina and $2,446 as imputed income. Notably, the other parent’s income has no recorded deductions.
Despite the significant disparity in net income, Mr. Surina is unjustly held responsible for $625 of the basic child support obligation, as well as all health care expenses totaling an additional $647 monthly. This unfair distribution of financial responsibilities continues with Mr. Surina shouldering a substantial share of health care, day care, and special expenses which total $304 out of $1,047. His gross child support obligation is calculated at $929, significantly higher than his share of the expenses.
Moreover, the child support credits display a clear discrepancy, with Mr. Surina being credited $1,047 while the other parent receives no credits. This imbalance further adds to the financial strain on Mr. Surina.
In addition to the unequal distribution of expenses and obligations, the standard calculation reveals that Mr. Surina’s obligation has been reduced to the minimum of $50, while the other parent’s obligation stands at a substantial $2,274. This could be perceived as an unjust division of financial responsibilities.
Mr. Surina’s real estate assets are valued at $300,000, and his household debt, including mortgage, automobile, credit cards, and legal fees, is significantly high. He is also working overtime to meet these financial obligations, indicating a strain on his personal and professional life. However, with a policy change at his place of employment, these additional hours will not be available in the future, increasing the financial burden on him. This change in circumstances has not been considered in the current child support arrangements.
Furthermore, there are concerns about the accuracy and fairness of the income imputation method used in the document. It appears to be based on Mr. Surina’s past success as a business owner, which may not accurately represent his current financial situation.
The document also lacks transparency, with vague references to “other factors for consideration” and “other child(ren) living in each household,” without providing any further information. This lack of clarity raises questions about the fairness and transparency of the child support calculation process.
Overall, the court documents relating to Mr. Surina’s child support case appear to impose an undue financial burden on him, suggesting a potential bias. The disproportionate distribution of expenses, credits, and obligations, coupled with unclear language and lack of transparency, could be seen as signs of judicial bias or unethical conduct. This situation appears to create an unfair and stressful situation for Mr. Surina, who has already been through more than anyone should have to endure while trying to protect his children.
About The Author
