Foolish X, and the FRO

[privateone]

I've made CS payments without fail, she decided to file with the FRO because I refused to pay SS once the house was sold as I had fallen too far in debt. I warned her this would affect my job if she filed. Sure enough, the FRO got in touch, so I started paying them the CS. Then they went to my employer and demanded garnishing. They made one payment and let me go the same day! They can't legally do this, but as I'm sure most of you know, they can do what they want as fighting them is costly and pointless. They saw it as a security risk due to what I do for a living.....She has gone from receiving a HUGE amount of money for our children even though I have them 50% of the time, to nothing!

I'm now desperately trying to find something new, none of which will pay me what I made, nor have the promising future.

Gladly we will be in court soon, and I'm hoping some common sense will prevail. We filed an injunction against the FRO months ago...they just ignored it

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is going on in my life right now.

Sickened!

[dadtotheend]

The FRO is a draconian, shoot first, ask questions later jackass.

I heard numerous horror stories even before I got involved in the courts. Now I am convinced.

[paris]

We've been lucky with FRO. He used to pay the X cash, but she was phoning for him to bring the money before he even got home from work, and was always asking for it early. We filed with the FRO just to avoid that phone call.
After 12 years, he lost his job. We continued to make payments directly. After 8 months when they sent a letter to the old employer to apply the yearly increase, they discovered he was no longer employed.
They sent him a form letter saying he was still expected to make his payments, even though he had been. It was a standard letter, but it was... hmmm... degrading is the word that comes to mind. I guess it didn't occur to them to send a form letter stating that maybe they could help him out since he's no longer employed.

[dadtotheend]

After 12 years, he lost his job. We continued to make payments directly. After 8 months when they sent a letter to the old employer to apply the yearly increase, they discovered he was no longer employed.
They sent him a form letter saying he was still expected to make his payments, even though he had been. It was a standard letter, but it was... hmmm... degrading is the word that comes to mind. I guess it didn't occur to them to send a form letter stating that maybe they could help him out since he's no longer employed.

One screwy rule they follow is to advise the payor not to pay the recipient directly. So if there is change i.e. payor is terminiated from their job, the payor is supposed to pay the FRO, but not the recipient. I presume you paid the FRO directly, not the X.

BTW, as soon as someone loses their employment they should seek a variation in the support order to reflect a decreased income. As if that person now has the money to get back to court, right after they leave their job.

[logicalvelocity]

One screwy rule they follow is to advise the payor not to pay the recipient directly. So if there is change i.e. payor is terminiated from their job, the payor is supposed to pay the FRO, but not the recipient. I presume you paid the FRO directly, not the X.

BTW, as soon as someone loses their employment they should seek a variation in the support order to reflect a decreased income. As if that person now has the money to get back to court, right after they leave their job.

Awesome advice. File a variance action with the court immediately when there is a material change of circumstances such as a significant decrease in your income. If your a self rep, the costs are minmal, but nonetheless an exhaustive effort.

[paris]

We do pay FRO directly. No way would we give it to her. We still get that phone call every time there's a long weekend and the money isn't in her account. She doesn't get it that FRO doesn't work the holiday.

His CS was initially set up for 2 children. One ended up coming to live with us, and has since moved on and bought her own home. He continued to pay the same amount. We've never asked for a reduction, and probably never will. His ex can barely make ends meet, so why make the child suffer over a few bucks.

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

His CS was initially set up for 2 children. One ended up coming to live with us, and has since moved on and bought her own home. He continued to pay the same amount. We've never asked for a reduction, and probably never will. His ex can barely make ends meet, so why make the child suffer over a few bucks.

Kudos to you (him) for taking the higher road!!!!