Document: PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/280.0 PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN 2019-06-07 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-07
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
The Proposed Parenting Plan for Aaron Surina and his children presents several potential biases and unfair treatments towards Aaron, which seem to overlook and undermine his rights as a father.
The reports of alleged child abuse and neglect against Aaron, which were a significant basis of the plan, appear to disproportionately focus on his supposed anger management issues and voluntary unemployment. These allegations overlook the fact that Sirinya Surina, the petitioner, has been involved in previous domestic violence physical assaults. The proposed plan also imposes an arguably unfair financial burden on Aaron by insisting on equally split mediation costs, despite allegations of his unemployment.
Furthermore, the parenting plan enforces a strict and rigid 50/50 parenting time schedule, which seems to disregard the flexible circumstances, such as school schedules or seasonal changes. The plan’s rigidity could potentially limit Aaron’s parenting time and appears to prioritize numerical division over the children’s needs and parents’ circumstances.
The holiday schedule provision is another area of concern, as it seems to favor the mother and restrict Aaron’s flexibility, potentially reducing his time with his children. The complexity of the special weekends and holiday schedules can lead to confusion and miscommunication, potentially disadvantaging Aaron.
The plan also places an undue onus on Aaron by making him solely responsible for all transportation during exchanges between parents. Additionally, the requirement for parents to have their established residence within approximately 30 miles of the children’s school could limit Aaron’s relocation choices, indirectly controlling his personal decisions and freedom.
There are also concerns about the ambiguity surrounding the ‘stable residency’ status and the provision allowing the custodian to move without giving prior notice under certain circumstances. These elements could potentially infringe upon Aaron’s rights as a parent and demonstrate potential bias within the system.
Furthermore, the plan’s clause that the mother shall not remove the children from Washington State without written agreement implies a potential bias, as it does not equally limit the father’s movement with the children. The document’s declaration under penalty of perjury could be seen as an undue threat or pressure towards Aaron, potentially intimidating him and inhibiting his ability to advocate for his interests in the parenting plan.
In conclusion, the Proposed Parenting Plan appears to contain several elements that may seem biased against Aaron Surina, potentially leading to a skewed balance of responsibilities and privileges in the shared parenting arrangement, and infringing upon his rights as a parent. This perceived bias suggests potential unethical conduct and a need for a more balanced and fair approach in developing parenting plans.
About The Author
