Can monthly child support being paid directly to the recipient without involving FRO?

[Ivany]

Hi all,

When a court makes an order for child support based on a settlement agreement, is there a way to amend the support order or deduction order to pay on-going child support directly to the recipient from the payor instead of going thru FRO? Do both retroactive support(lump sum) and ongoing have to go to thru FRO? The parties agree on the one time lump sum retroactive support and on going, not clear if have to go thru FRO for both payments.

Thanks.

[blinkandimgone]

Nothing has to go through FRO, and doesn't unless it's been filed with FRO. If you're already going through FRO, the recipient can withdraw from FRO and choose to get paid directly.

[Ivany]

Nothing has to go through FRO, and doesn't unless it's been filed with FRO. If you're already going through FRO, the recipient can withdraw from FRO and choose to get paid directly.

It is said that when a court makes an order, the FRO will be automatically involved, the court will send a duction order to FRO, and the payor has to fill out a Support Order Information Form to list income source for deduction, is that not always the case if both parties agree to pay directly? Thanks

[rockscan]

If you are settling and providing your agreement for a rubber stamp at the conference, you can agree to it not going to FRO. Language will have to be included to note this as well as it being enforceable by FRO should the payor not pay support for a period of time.

If you go to trial or the judge needs to order it go through FRO then yes it will go through them.

FRO isn't the worst thing. If you agree to update annually you would just do an amending agreement and file that annually with FRO.

[Ivany]

If you are settling and providing your agreement for a rubber stamp at the conference, you can agree to it not going to FRO. Language will have to be included to note this as well as it being enforceable by FRO should the payor not pay support for a period of time.

If you go to trial or the judge needs to order it go through FRO then yes it will go through them.

FRO isn't the worst thing. If you agree to update annually you would just do an amending agreement and file that annually with FRO.

"file that annually with FRO" means sending payment to recipient directly and update FRO once a year? does it need both party agree ? Thanks

[rockscan]

No that means if your file is with FRO and you need to update annually, you agree and sign a motion to change on consent and then it is sent to FRO for update. It may actually be easier than that now. I saw something on the site about an update form.

[Ivany]

Thanks alot. BTW, If the below presents in a court order, is it very hard for the applicant claiming child support after the child turning eighteen?

The applicant shall forbear from claiming any child support including s7 expenses, once the child turns eighteen.

[rockscan]

Post secondary expenses will be ordered as will any medical expenses over $100. You shouldn't put that in your order.

[Ivany]

The settlement conference judge asked two parties to come to a agreement to avoid trial. Two parties have an agreement on many things. What if both parties agree to the above clause? Will the judge take it out or disapprove the agreement? The judge might not order it? thanks.

[noteasy]

Why is the poster asking this?
It could be that their ex is telling them that child support must go through FRO and lying that there is no other choice and so the better statement


I don’t want to pay child support through FRO under what conditions can I be forced into FRO?

op should also be aware that if they pay support but do not receive it they are not allowed to claim the child as a dependent on taxes. Forcing 2 way payment is best financially.

[rockscan]

Yes the settlement conference judge will not approve the order if they feel it is against what is law and ordered. Post secondary and medical expenses are not the same as dance or hockey. Plus if the party that is receiving support has a lawyer, they will not agree to it and keep negotiating.

Your best bet is took at the law and also what courts order and put that into the agreement.

For post secondary, you should have a clause that lays out school expenses and what the child will pay as well as how the rest will be split between both parties.

For medical, outline what the share is after both insurance benefits (if any) are applied.

Support and these expenses are the right of the child and you can't negotiate them away.

[blinkandimgone]

Why is the poster asking this?
It could be that their ex is telling them that child support must go through FRO and lying that there is no other choice and so the better statement


I don’t want to pay child support through FRO under what conditions can I be forced into FRO?

op should also be aware that if they pay support but do not receive it they are not allowed to claim the child as a dependent on taxes. Forcing 2 way payment is best financially.

Why is irrelevant, the information is the same regardless of the why. They could be the payor or the recipient, that doesn't change the info and isn't necessary to providing the right answer.

As for what the ex says, also irrelevant- nobody should ever take legal advice from their ex or their ex's lawyer.

[noteasy]

Why is irrelevant, the information is the same regardless of the why. They could be the payor or the recipient, that doesn't change the info and isn't necessary to providing the right answer.

As for what the ex says, also irrelevant- nobody should ever take legal advice from their ex or their ex's lawyer.

It is relevant, the poster may have someone telling them they are going to file a motion if they do not comply. Someone put the idea that FRO is required.

I am reading these posts and can’t tell if a person can be forced to go through FRO. It is usually a bad deal for anyone paying child support. The system is set up to prevent abuse by the payor but also allows a savvy receiver to abuse it by stalling reduction of child support in court or making things expensive by forcing court.

[rockscan]

It is relevant, the poster may have someone telling them they are going to file a motion if they do not comply. Someone put the idea that FRO is required.

I am reading these posts and can’t tell if a person can be forced to go through FRO. It is usually a bad deal for anyone paying child support. The system is set up to prevent abuse by the payor but also allows a savvy receiver to abuse it by stalling reduction of child support in court or making things expensive by forcing court.

Still irrelevant. OP asked a question and the question is what needs answering, no backstory or assumptions are needed. The answer is still the same regardless of what they have been told.

And FRO isn't bad. They have updated a lot of their services and if a recipient isn't willing to update, the payor can file a motion and will get the money back or the overpayment applied to their future payments.

[blinkandimgone]

It is relevant, the poster may have someone telling them they are going to file a motion if they do not comply. Someone put the idea that FRO is required.

I am reading these posts and can’t tell if a person can be forced to go through FRO. It is usually a bad deal for anyone paying child support. The system is set up to prevent abuse by the payor but also allows a savvy receiver to abuse it by stalling reduction of child support in court or making things expensive by forcing court.

Someone may be telling them that, but unless it's their own lawyer or the court, they should do their due diligence and research the info themselves, or get legal advice from someone other than their ex and their lawyer. Either party is well within their rights to file a motion if they want to. If they have a signed agreement, a motion isn't necessary
to go through FRO so it would make zero sense to spend the money on a motion to get something that doesn't require a motion. The courts likely wouldn't even schedule it, unless a deduction order is needed due to arrears and non payment.

Using FRO isn't mandatory.

Parties can agree to pay directly. Even if they do, either party at any time can decide to file their agreement and order with FRO.

If a court makes a deduction order, it goes through FRO and is garnished from your wages through your employer.

If one party files with FRO, the payor pays FRO directly and they pay the recipient.


Both parties have to agree in writing in order to withdraw from FRO.

the information is the same, irrelevant of why the person is asking. If you're unsure, the FRO site has very clear information:


https://www.ontario.ca/page/paying-a...pousal-support