Document: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/460.0 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 2021-02-16 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2021-02-16
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Unified Summary:
The court document titled “Affidavit of Defendant Respondent” represents Aaron Surina’s struggle for justice for his children amid perceived biases and potential violations of his legal rights. The document indicates a series of concerns regarding the execution of the court-ordered parenting plan, which seems to place substantial limitations on Surina’s parental responsibilities, thereby constraining his right to make significant decisions about his children’s lives.
The document demonstrates potential misuse of the law on custodial interference and possible bias in the court’s interpretation of the law. The application of this law could be seen as prejudiced, especially in cases involving domestic violence protection orders, unfairly penalizing Surina for protecting his children.
The document further highlights instances of alleged bias in favor of Sirinya Surina, the custodian, in the court’s handling of the parenting schedule, transportation arrangements, communication rules, and relocation provisions. The limitations placed on Surina’s time with his children, the responsibility of transportation, and potential disruption to the children’s routine due to relocation indicate a bias against him.
The document also outlines the imposition of a civil restraints/no contact order and a mandated use of the website “Our Family Wizard” for all communications, which may restrict Surina’s right to communicate with, and maintain a close relationship with his children.
Moreover, the court’s decision to limit major decision-making to only one parent, Sirinya Surina, without providing specific reasons or evidence, suggests a lack of fairness in the proceedings. The court’s warning about contempt if the parenting plan is not followed, even if the other parent does not, seemingly puts the sole onus on Aaron, potentially indicating underlying bias.
Lastly, the court’s lack of transparency in adopting the statements in section 3 as its findings, without providing a thorough explanation or evidence to substantiate the claim that the Parenting Plan is in the best interest of the children, may suggest a disregard for Surina’s parental rights and his ability to contribute positively to his children’s welfare.
In light of these concerns, the document suggests potential ethical misconduct by attorneys Stanley Kempner or Keith Glanzer or anyone representing Sirinya Surina or Carl Wilson or Keith Glanzer. Aaron Surina’s commitment to his children and his struggle for justice amid the perceived unfair treatment and potential bias are commendable and warrant further investigation into the fairness of the proceedings.
About The Author
