Document: PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/478.0 PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS 2023-06-08 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-06-08
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS
The court document related to Aaron Surina’s case exhibits potential biases and lacks transparency, potentially disadvantaging Aaron in his fight for his children. The document discusses an objection to moving with children and changing a parenting/custody order. However, it appears to be based on a contested trial, not a unanimous agreement or a signed default motion. Unfortunately, specifics about the trial such as the date or participants are not provided, which could disadvantage Aaron by keeping him in the dark about key details.
The document also mentions potential expenses and fees such as Guardian ad Litem (GAL) fees, lawyer fees, court costs, and other fees and expenses. However, the amounts are undisclosed. The document also discusses jurisdiction over the children, yet crucial information such as the children’s names or whether Washington is their home state is not provided. This lack of information could hinder Aaron’s understanding of the court’s jurisdiction in this case, potentially compromising his legal rights.
There appears to be potential bias, as the court has permitted the children’s relocation from their home state to Washington without fully assessing the potential harm to the children and the non-relocating parent, Aaron. The documents lack transparency on whether there were any agreements between the relocating and objecting persons about the move.
The court may have overlooked the potential harm of disrupting the children’s contact with Aaron. It states that disrupting the children’s contact with the relocating person would be more harmful than disrupting their contact with the objecting person, which seems biased. The reason for the relocation and the objections against it were not evaluated in terms of their good faith. There’s no clear analysis on how the move would affect the quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the children.
From Aaron’s perspective, the court documents outline changes to the parenting/custody order and child support, which could adversely affect his relationship with his children and financial stability. The court has left several findings blank, including the financial impact and logistics of moving or not moving, alternatives to the planned move, and other arrangements to foster and continue Aaron’s relationship with his children. This lack of detail demonstrates a disregard for Aaron’s circumstances and may suggest inherent bias against him.
The document also indicates a change in the child support order due to the move and/or change in the person with whom the children live most of the time. This could unjustly burden Aaron financially. The document does not provide any specific reasons for the changes in the parenting/custody order, leaving Aaron in a state of uncertainty about his future relationship with his children.
The document appears to be a standard form for order findings, detailing potential costs and fees. It also mentions that these fees may carry a 12% interest rate, subject to change based on certain conditions. However, it may be signed by the court without notice given to either party, which could potentially raise concerns about due process and fairness for Aaron. In Aaron’s situation, if the court makes any decision without notifying him or giving him an opportunity to present his case, it could be seen as an injustice or an example of judicial bias.
About The Author
