Document: PLAINTIFF PETITIONER BRIEF
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/524.0 PLAINTIFF PETITIONER BRIEF 2023-09-07 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-09-07
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The document analysis reveals a series of potentially unethical actions, biased handling of the case, and an unfair portrayal of Aaron Surina’s attempts to protect his children. Mr. Surina’s rights as a co-parent were seemingly disregarded when Ms. Surina unilaterally decided to relocate their children’s principal residence, notifying him after the fact, and proceeding with the relocation despite Mr. Surina’s timely objections.
In violation of RCW 26.09.480(2), Ms. Surina relocated during the period in which Mr. Surina, as a party entitled to time with the children, had filed a summons and objection. This action appears to be a stark example of unethical conduct, as it goes against the stipulated legal procedure.
Mr. Surina’s attempts to restrain the relocation were met with unwarranted procedural hurdles. His motion to restrain was deemed untimely despite its filing shortly after Ms. Surina’s relocation. Additionally, a notice of hearing for a date unconfirmed by the court accompanied his subsequent motion to restrain, potentially indicating bias within the judicial process.
Despite Mr. Surina’s counsel issuing Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Ms. Surina, no answers were received. This non-response could be interpreted as an attempt to obstruct or delay the legal process, further disadvantaging Mr. Surina. Despite this, the court has not yet scheduled the matter for trial, suggesting possible judicial bias against Mr. Surina.
The court documents criticize Mr. Surina for the timing and filing of his motions, an interpretation he views as biased and unfair. He is accused of misleading the court by misquoting prior proceedings, a claim he vehemently denies, believing his representation of the court’s decision was accurate and consistent with Washington law.
Mr. Surina perceives a bias favoring the mother’s right to relocate the children despite his objections and an unjust insistence on strict adherence to filing deadlines that seemingly disregard the complexity and emotional strain of his situation. He views the court’s criticism of his understanding of Washington law as an unjust form of judicial bias that unduly favors the mother and dismisses his legitimate concerns.
The court has overlooked Mr. Surina’s objections and concerns, particularly those related to the relocation’s impact on the children’s schooling and their proximity to him. The court’s dismissal of Mr. Surina’s objections as ‘bad faith’ appears to be an unfair characterization of his efforts to protect his children’s interests.
The court has seemingly ignored Mr. Surina’s claims about the potential detrimental effects of the children’s change of school and his lack of decision-making authority over the children’s education. It also disregards Mr. Surina’s contention that Ms. Surina’s work schedule could affect her ability to care for the children despite Mr. Surina being a stay-at-home father.
The handling of Mr. Surina’s attempt to restrain Ms. Surina’s relocation seems biased, favoring Ms. Surina’s relocation plans without duly considering Mr. Surina’s justifications for the restraint. This treatment indicates a potential bias against Mr. Surina and an unfair handling of his claims and objections.
The document unjustly asserts that Mr. Surina’s motion is incompatible with Washington law, implying that he is either ignorant of the law or intentionally disobeys it. It further alleges that Mr. Surina misrepresents the record and fails to consider mandatory factors that could provide a factual basis for the court to evaluate the intended relocation.
The document unfairly attempts to portray Mr. Surina’s actions as prejudicial towards Ms. Surina, skewing the narrative against him without adequately considering his reasons for filing the Motion to Restrain. This behavior reflects unethical conduct on the part of the plaintiff’s attorneys.
The court documents seemingly fail to provide a balanced view of the case, leaning heavily towards Ms. Surina’s side, reflecting potential judicial bias and injustice toward Mr. Surina. The failure to provide an impartial narrative within the document and the unjust accusations against Mr. Surina create an environment not conducive to a fair trial.
About The Author
