Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/321.0 MOTION 2019-08-02 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-08-02
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: MOTION
The combined summary of the document is as follows:
The document suggests a series of perceived injustices, biases, and potential unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, the respondent father in a complex divorce and custody case. He asserts that the petitioner, Sirinya Polarj (Surina), and her counsel, have strategically scheduled trial dates on his son’s birthday, which he perceives as an intentional, cruel move. The continuous legal battles he has faced over the past two years have caused significant emotional distress for their children, leading to questions about the petitioner’s motivations and the court’s lack of intervention.
Aaron criticizes the court for not enforcing children’s counselling with previously used counsellors, a need he deems crucial for his children’s wellbeing. The court’s refusal to compel the petitioner to sign tax form 8332, which would allow him to claim child tax credits, is seen as unfair, given his claim that she has not contributed financially to their children’s expenses.
Furthermore, Aaron feels aggrieved by the court’s failure to mandate mediation between him and the petitioner without their counsels’ involvement. He alleges that the petitioner’s counsel has refused to participate in affordable mediation sessions, impeding progress in their discussions. He also criticizes the court for not requiring the petitioner to release their marriage counselling records, which could provide valuable insights into the divorce filing.
The respondent father also alleges an immediate investigation into abuse allegations against the petitioner was ordered but not followed through. He also has concerns that his property was sold to fund a court-ordered GAL, forcing him into indigency due to litigation. Mr. Surina perceives a pattern of bias against him and unethical conduct, with him alleging that Mr. Glanzer, the opposing counsel, has been conducting ex parte “Court conferences” with key individuals, resulting in these individuals refusing to take on Aaron’s case or provide services.
The document also suggests potential due process violations, such as the inconsistent application of legal procedures regarding the admission of hearsay in hearings for protection orders, which could have deprived Aaron of his right to challenge allegations against him. Also, the court’s preference for a “pro se-friendly procedure” could disadvantage Aaron if he is not as legally knowledgeable as the opposing party or if he cannot afford legal representation. This bias could lead to an unequal playing field and unfair outcomes.
Aaron’s potential financial difficulties, such as an overdue tuition balance for David Surina, may not have been appropriately considered by the court in its decisions. If the text messages discussing the potential issuance of a restraining order or order of protection were permitted as evidence without the opportunity for Aaron to cross-examine their source, this could be another violation of due process.
In conclusion, the document suggests a series of perceived injustices, biases, and potential unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, painting a picture of a legal process that is laden with bias and unfairness against him and his children.
About The Author
