Document: MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/171.0 MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES 2018-03-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-03-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: MOTION FOR WAIVER OF FEES
Comprehensive Summary:
Court documents indicate that Aaron Surina, the respondent/defendant in this case, is enduring financial hardship. He is seeking a waiver for all or some court-imposed filing fees and surcharges, citing his inability to meet necessary household needs while also managing these fees. Despite providing a financial statement to substantiate his request, it seems the court continues to impose these costs, potentially suggesting bias or unethical conduct.
Surina’s financial strain is further amplified by his responsibility to pay child support. The court’s apparent disregard for his financial circumstances could be viewed as unfair, particularly if it hinders his access to judicial relief.
It remains unclear whether the other involved party possesses a substantial income. If this is the case, it could be perceived as an injustice if Surina is solely burdened with the court fees and surcharges. This aspect commands additional scrutiny to ensure fairness.
The document also reveals potential bias against Surina, with the court demanding a Facilitator Fee of $20 and a Domestic Violence Surcharge of $54, despite his potential inability to pay. The court’s disregard for Surina’s financial circumstances and its denial of the motion for a waiver of these fees could be seen as limiting his access to justice.
Furthermore, the stipulation that the court can require Surina to pay the waived fees if there’s a change in his financial circumstances seems unfair, as it imposes additional financial pressure without considering his economic stability. Additionally, the court’s mandate for Surina to request the respondent to pay the filing fee may place him in an undeservedly vulnerable position.
The document also suggests potential bias against Surina, stating that if this is a joint petition, the respondent must pay the filing fee before the entry of the final orders, or else a judgment will be entered against the respondent. This provision appears to unjustly favor the respondent over Surina.
Although the document is difficult to read due to formatting issues and lacks clear and comprehensive information about the approval or denial of the waiver, it is evident that Aaron Surina may be facing unjust treatment in his struggle to secure his rights and protect his children.
About The Author
