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

[noteasy]

My ex really really didn't want it. Every offer we made we would include FRO and the he would insist on removing it. Basically he didn't understand how FRO worked and assumed that if he missed one payment he would lose his license. As much as it was explained that this is not the case, he had this idea in his head and that was that. We compromised and now if he is late, even just the one time, by 5 days I can file with FRO. So yes we both agreed and its in our agreement,

Good compromise, sort of, 5 days late one time isn't much.

[LMum]

How and why did you get an order not to use FRO?
Did both of you agree to it?

My ex really really didn't want it. Every offer we made we would include FRO and the he would insist on removing it. Basically he didn't understand how FRO worked and assumed that if he missed one payment he would lose his license. As much as it was explained that this is not the case, he had this idea in his head and that was that. We compromised and now if he is late, even just the one time, by 5 days I can file with FRO. So yes we both agreed and its in our agreement,

[noteasy]

How and why did you get an order not to use FRO?
Did both of you agree to it?

[LMum]

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

We had an order NOT to use FRO, However, it was still sent to them from the courts, and now we are in the process of signing a Notice of Withdrawal form which basically releases FRO from the process. Both parties has to sign. FRO will contact you or your lawyer once they get the paperwork for next steps.

[rockscan]

FRO can be abused by the recipient and will increase the court paper work yearly.
They do keep records so it is difficult for either party to lie about the amounts of CS paid/received.

It is a hostile process created to address those that will not follow court orders to pay support.

Not true. FRO only enforces what is in the order. If you have percentages for expenses, they won't enforce it. If the ex files expenses as arrears, it can be disputed. FRO is only difficult if both parties are unreasonable. If both parties agree on annual updates, there is paperwork to fix it. The only time court is needed is if both parties disagree.

FRO is good to remove having to deal with the ex. It works as the middle man to take out any contact with the other party. My husband has not had to speak to his ex, pay her or write a cheque since 2014. In fact, he made his last cs payment last month and it was simply a monthly bill in his bank account. He turned it off and is now done.

[noteasy]

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that if you go through FRO, and you are the recipient of the payments, FRO has you covered in that they will garnish wages, take away drivers licences (???) So you will get your money. Otherwise, you are at risk of not being paid, if you don't go through FRO.

Is this correct?

Love the treating children as objects worth money thing. Yep, children are paychecks.
Nope, you are at risk of not being paid regardless if FRO is involved.
If the person owing child support gives that money to FRO then FRO will give it to the recipient.

If FRO does not get the money then they have some powers and resources to obtain it.
FRO can be abused by the recipient and will increase the court paper work yearly.
They do keep records so it is difficult for either party to lie about the amounts of CS paid/received.

It is a hostile process created to address those that will not follow court orders to pay support.

[rockscan]

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that if you go through FRO, and you are the recipient of the payments, FRO has you covered in that they will garnish wages, take away drivers licences (???) So you will get your money. Otherwise, you are at risk of not being paid, if you don't go through FRO.

Is this correct?

Only if the payor is not paying or in arrears. As long as support is being paid and the arrears are less than $3000, there is no action like this taken.

[JustQ]

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.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that if you go through FRO, and you are the recipient of the payments, FRO has you covered in that they will garnish wages, take away drivers licences (???) So you will get your money. Otherwise, you are at risk of not being paid, if you don't go through FRO.

Is this correct?

[rockscan]

I want to note that a support deduction order is a last resort method to collect support. It is normally filed if the support payor has not been paying support or if they have amassed significant arrears. If an order goes to FRO and the payor does pay, they don't go after an employer. My husband's case was registered with FRO and he paid monthly his support. They never contacted his employer or garnished anything.

Like I said before, FRO is not a bad thing. It's like a bill payment for online banking and you don't have to worry about your ex asking for additional money or claiming you didn't pay. They register everything and manage the case for you. If you are both reasonable about updating, you simply sign the relevant forms and it all goes according to plan.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.