Document: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/30.0 CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED 2017-09-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2017-09-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET-PROPOSED
This comprehensive summary focuses on the apparent biases and potential ethical misconduct in the court documents, dated September 15, 2017, for case 17-3-01817-0, concerning Aaron Surina and his two children, Andrew Surina-1 and David Surina- 5. The child support worksheet seems to place an unjust burden on Aaron, without adequately considering variables that could affect his financial situation.
A glaring issue lies in the calculation of gross monthly income. Aaron’s wages and salaries are noted as $8,719, but an unexplained imputed income of $1,906 is added to Sirinya Surina’s column, raising questions about the transparency of the process. Further, the worksheet only allows for a $146 deduction for Sirinya from her gross income, while Aaron’s deductions amount to $1,846, a significant portion of his gross income.
Moreover, the basic child support obligation for Aaron is unreasonably higher than for Sirinya at $1,453 compared to $363. This disparity suggests an unequal distribution of financial responsibility, unfairly burdening Aaron. The same bias appears in the allocation of the children’s educational expenses, where Aaron is charged $524, with no such costs assigned to Sirinya.
Unfairness continues with the gross child support obligation of $1,872.20 imposed on Aaron, compared to $467.80 for Sirinya, marking a significant disparity and undue financial burden on Aaron.
There are also concerns regarding the lack of explicit details about Aaron’s situation and potential biases against him. The child support calculation appears skewed, with the ‘Standard Calculation’ line indicating that Aaron is obligated to pay $467.80, while Sirinya is responsible for $1,348.20. The allocation seems income-based, without clear evidence of considering other factors such as time spent with the child or other household income.
The document fails to detail household assets, debts, other household income, or potential non-recurring income, potentially skewing the child support calculations against Aaron. The ‘Other Factors For Consideration’ section is left blank, possibly indicating a lack of thoroughness in considering all aspects of Aaron’s situation, which could unjustly burden him with excessive child support payment.
The document’s missing signatures suggest it may not be finalized or agreed upon, raising questions about the validity of the decisions made based on this incomplete document, potentially representing an injustice against Aaron.
In conclusion, these documents seem to disproportionately favor Sirinya Surina without clear justification for the unequal distribution of financial responsibilities, raising serious concerns about potential bias, unfair treatment, and possible unethical conduct towards Aaron Surina.
About The Author
