Document: PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/29.0 PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN 2017-09-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2017-09-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN
Combined Summary:
The proposed parenting plan, while seemingly fair at first glance, appears to disadvantage Aaron Surina in numerous ways, potentially impinging on his rights as a father.
The document lacks a personalized approach, failing to cater to Mr. Surina’s specific needs and concerns. The mandated mediation process, coupled with equal financial obligation, could be burdensome and disadvantageous for him, especially if he disagrees with the decisions made. The document also fails to elucidate reasons for parental limitations, showing possible bias as these limitations are reserved for the mother with no corresponding provision for the father.
The plan’s custody arrangement might appear to offer equal time to both parents, but its conflict resolution mechanism shows potential bias. It grants the mother, Ms. Sirinya Surina, priority in even years while Mr. Surina gets priority in odd years for summer vacations. This unequal resolution method is carried forward in the holiday schedule as well, disadvantaging Mr. Surina during Thanksgiving and Winter Break.
The plan also falls short in ensuring transparency and fairness in terms of relocation. It does not stipulate consequences for a custodian failing to notify every person with court-ordered time about relocation, thereby leaving room for potential misconduct.
The ambiguous provision allowing the custodial parent to move within the same school district without formal notice could potentially limit Mr. Surina’s awareness of changes in his children’s living situation. Additionally, the custodian’s ability to move in cases of perceived risk without giving notice could unjustly limit Mr. Surina’s access to his children.
The plan’s transportation arrangements employ a “curbside exchange” method, which may compromise the children’s emotional well-being, demonstrating an ethical concern affecting Mr. Surina’s interest in his children. Furthermore, the plan does not explicitly guarantee the father’s right to reasonable telephone privileges with his children, which could further strain his relationship with them.
The document also includes stipulations that indirectly cast the mother in a negative light, which may be unfairly detrimental to the children’s perception of her. Also, the proposal restricts the mother from removing the children from Washington State, which could potentially limit the father’s access to his children if he doesn’t reside within the state.
Lastly, the document, prepared and presented by the respondent’s attorney, could potentially reflect a bias against Mr. Surina, making the entire plan seem prejudiced.
Overall, the proposed parenting plan seems to harbor several injustices and potential biases against Mr. Surina, thereby compromising his ability to maintain strong relationships with his children and limiting his rightful role as a father.
About The Author
