Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2005, 05:44 PM
Fresh Starts's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 46
Fresh Starts is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Back Child Support

Ok, I have a question.

The soon to be ex and I were seperated in January of this year.
When I went to court in June, an issue of Child support was granted for $1315 a month for three kids.
Since it takes awhile for the order to go thru, and since it had to go thru FRO it was a good two months before I got the papers from FRO (to fill out all the details etc...) I claimed at that time on the the FRO papers that the back child support started as of the court date (In June) ...

1. Should I have claimed the back child support as of January?

2. If I should have - what do I do now to fix it?

3. If what I did was right... and I claimed what I was suppose to on the FRO papers... how do I get the back retro payments of the child support from January to June ?

Any help on this would be great...

Thanks
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-30-2005, 06:37 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Buried in paperwork
Posts: 581
Jeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud of
Default

The court order itself should state when child support starts.

The Family Responsibility Office just enforces what a court order says - it cannot change it or make a decision as to when a court order starts.

What's the exact wording of the court order?
__________________
Ottawa Divorce
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2005, 04:30 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,944
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

I think you may be able to claim interest on the arrears owed. Its not much but every bit helps. Hopefully they can make improvements to the FRO on how an order can be processed faster. It really needs to be revamped to get more efficient in this area.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2005, 08:32 PM
Fresh Starts's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 46
Fresh Starts is on a distinguished road
Default

The order states that the ex is to pay 1315 a month.
The order is dated for June 12th.
But I moved out of the house in January.
When I filled out the forms, I stated what the order stated, that the order was MADE June 12th.

This is a temp order, and I know that my lawyer said something about still being able to fight for the back support - but I was wondering what the chances were that I would get about 6,000 in money still owed that FRO does not know about.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2005, 10:48 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Buried in paperwork
Posts: 581
Jeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud of
Default

Can you let us know the exact wording of the court order (leaving out names, dates and any other identifying information)?

If the court order doesn't deal with the January to June period, then you'll need to get that either by going back to court or more normally, through a negotiated agreement. The FRO can't just decide to collect child support for that period if the court order doesn't cover it.

I'm not sure what you wrote in those papers regarding the start date would matter too much. The court order would be sent to the FRO and I would hope that they go by that rather than anything else.
__________________
Ottawa Divorce
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-02-2005, 10:40 PM
Fresh Starts's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 46
Fresh Starts is on a distinguished road
Default

I don't have the exact papers for the spousal support order.

My lawyer called to tell me what happened, when it happened, but never mailed out the documents to me.

Since I do work for my lawyer I have access to my records. So I was able to go through the paperwork,. But the only thing I was able to find was this:

Form 1 - From the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice.

It gives both last names of myself and the ex, plus the names of the lawyers.

It gives a file #

Typed it say's
Consent Endorsement Request.

And in handwriting it states:

The respondent shall pay to the applicant the sum of $750.00 per month commencing August 1, 05.
The motion shall be returnalble on the 26th day of October, 05 after questioning has been completed.
The order shall not prejudice the retroactivity or quantum of support.

It was submitted on the 26th day of August, 05

I am just not sure if this is the court order that FRO would need.
I know I work with my lawyer but we have agreed not to discuss my file during working hours. So I voice mailed my lawyers other assistant to ask her what was going on, asking her to get back to me when she can.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2005, 06:05 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,944
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

Without actually seeing it; Sounds like you have an interim interim order in place handwritten by the Judge. It is up to the registar to issue a support deduction order from the Judge's endorsement directly to the FRO. You could ask the registar at the court house if a SDO (support deduction order has been issued.

The issue is returnable on October 25, 2005 to argue the motion by what you have written.

"The order shall not prejudice the retroactivity or quantum of support."

On your motion date, that would be the time to argue for retroactivity and quantum. Have you not had your motion yet?

Your lawyer may have to secure a date for this to occur.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2005, 07:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 860
Grace has a spectacular aura aboutGrace has a spectacular aura about
Default

This is what drives me crazy using the court system. You would think that the support and retroactive support would have been dealt with at the same time, so she now has to go back for another motion.

Sorry, just venting.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2005, 10:49 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Buried in paperwork
Posts: 581
Jeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud of
Default

It’s what the judge has written that counts :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh Starts
The respondent shall pay to the applicant the sum of $750.00 per month commencing August 1, 05.

The motion shall be returnable on the 26th day of October, 05 after questioning has been completed.

The order shall not prejudice the retroactivity or quantum of support.
I’m a bit confused about this, as the judge’s endorsement doesn’t actually say "child" support, but you’ve said that’s what it is. As well, you said the order was for $1315 per month and this says $750 per month.

This looks like what would be known as a "temporary temporary" order - basically something just put in place to tide everyone over for a few months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh Starts
1. Should I have claimed the back child support as of January?

2. If I should have - what do I do now to fix it?

3. If what I did was right... and I claimed what I was suppose to on the FRO papers... how do I get the back retro payments of the child support from January to June ?
In answer to your questions:

1. It sounds like your lawyer did this, but the issue hasn’t been decided yet by the court.

3. The retro payments will probably be argued when you return to October 26 or some later date. Or maybe, the issue will be postponed to trial depending on why this is in dispute.
__________________
Ottawa Divorce
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2005, 10:54 PM
Jeff's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Buried in paperwork
Posts: 581
Jeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud ofJeff has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
This is what drives me crazy using the court system. You would think that the support and retroactive support would have been dealt with at the same time, so she now has to go back for another motion.

Sorry, just venting.
I undestand your frustration Grace :-)

It really depend on the reason why things are in dispute. In Fresh Starts case, it sounds like there's some sort of complicated financial issue or a very serious factual dispute as the judge felt it was necessary to have questioning before deciding the issues.

Also the purpose of a motion is normally to deal with a situation that can't wait until a final resolution of the case. Usually that means ongoing child support and possibly ongoing spousal support to deal with the immediate situation. If there are complex issues regarding retroactive support it's not really necessary to resolve them on the motion.
__________________
Ottawa Divorce
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 PM.