Getting let go becuz of FRO!

[dav66]

your empathy should certainly NoT be for the payor here... He knows his responsibility to his children, yet he is refusing! Your empathy should be for our children. Your statement "i actually empathize with the payors in this story as they are only trying to fight back against a system stacked against them"... fighting back by holding out on his children is disturbing! It can be a system that works well for both parties.

yes it can be - but is not. never have i said or indicated anyone is holding out on their children, but a payor has a right to provide for his [or rearely ] her children as well - or new families. FRO is more often than not used as a tool against an payor as opposed to a tool for the children.

[neverending]

yes it can be - but is not. never have i said or indicated anyone is holding out on their children, but a payor has a right to provide for his [or rearely ] her children as well - or new families. FRO is more often than not used as a tool against an payor as opposed to a tool for the children.

empathy for a man who IS holding out on his children, that is sad. We could back and forth this all day - but I won't. Both parents have a resposibility to their children, and when one decides he/she doesnt want to - or feel he/she shouldn't have to help - then all of a sudden the world is out to get them. Ridiculous!!!

[Frustrated_DAD]

I'm sorry but I do take issue with responses that state:

"but a payor has a right to provide for his [or rearely ] her children as well - or new families"

Does this give justification to suddenly stop providing support for your previous children beacuse you know have new ones and a new family...

Your responsibilities for your children does not change if you suddenly have a new family. If you decide to have a new family then you should look at how you can provide for all as responsible parents prior to having a new family.

I have an ex who is trying to use that statement that she can not pay CS since she has a new family and child and it would be a hardship. So with that logic it would be ok to abandoned her first childern since she has decided to move on and have a new family.

Sorry - my rant...

[hadenough]

Yes, very ridiculous. Let's all empathize with the deadbeats. If they were normal and responsible in the 1st place - there wouldn't be a problem and there would be no need to enforce anything. What a wonderful world it would be. Let's get back to reality, shall we?

And if the payor decides to have 5 more kids w/another partner - great. But he had better have a good job b/c all of his children are entitled to support. It may seem convenient to forget about one family, and start creating new ones, but the entitlement of the first family does not disappear. Dav66: YOU are the perfect illustration of why FRO is a very valuable and much needed agency. Empathy? There is none here for any parent who is not being responsible, financially or otherwise.

[hadenough]

Good Rant Frustrated Dad. If these ppl (m or f) can't afford to take care of their older kids b/c they decide to KEEP having MORE kids?! How insane is that? FRO is more often used as a Tool against payors than it is for the benefit of children?? I couldn't care less who my ex is with, and if he keeps on having more kids - good for him - but not while he's skipping out on his responsibilities to my son. We have been through an awful time as a result of his lies, greed and total bs that kept us in Court for 3 years. I can assure you, I would've rather avoided all of it. But since he's not Normal or Responsible, I had no choice and if FRO can enforce the court order so that my son gets what he's entitled to - Child Support - then FRO can be a tool in the process of ensuring that ex's obligations are met. Action. Reaction. If he wants to keep his License etc then he knows where to send the money, on time.

[HammerDad]

but a payor has a right to provide for his [or rearely ] her children as well - or new families.

No.

The payor knows they have a financial obligation to their existing children and this information should be used when determining to have a second family.

If the payor chooses to have another family, their obligation to their existing children should not diminish due to their choice. Having more kids or a second family is a choice. And ones responsibilities don't change because of bad decisions.

Think of it as buying a car. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

[tiredofthisnow]

The payor does have a responsibility to pay for his/her children. I paid, through FRO for 10 years or more (woman) and now that the tables have turned my ex, who doesn't have other children, or a job, as he chooses not to work, new wife supports him, REFUSES to pay.
I find it's the lack of responsibility of his children that makes me very angry. Grow up, stop being a dead beat and pay!

[hadenough]

3 cheers for HammerDad! You said what I was "trying" to - and very well I might add! Before I got a court order, (and ya he's ignoring that) ex was "voluntarily" paying $400/mo. Driving a bmw and taking trips etc. Before the Birth of his 1st child (w/new wife) in "09 he sent a chq for $300 w/a note attached that said "I can no longer afford to send the extra $100, as we are expecting a new baby." Fast fwd to late 2011, and baby #2 came bouncing along. The court order was released in the Fall of 2011 and he is ordered to pay $1300/mo on an imputed income. He can sing the blues all he likes. His new family lives far better off than we do (she hasn't gone to court w/him yet) - but he got away all that time with his meagre (sp?) $300 donation - and this judgment? Looks good on him. Previous lawyer familiar w/the case and the Court we had trial at said "he got off easy."

And he did. Now he can deal w/FRO b/c I am tired of his financial bullying and bullshit in general. If he wants to ride around on a bicycle and not pay, I will have to deal with that. My hope is that he will once and for all cooperate. But it's not his "m.o" - whatever. If he keeps on having kids, I will do whatever it takes to see that my son is looked after. Preferably w/ex's cooperation. If not, I really don't care how bad the consequences get for him. That will be his own doing. A shame really, b/c the "new" family will bear the brunt of the stress as well. PS: the trial Judge DID take into account, his "new" family, and his ability to pay CS/SS in her final order.

[hadenough]

Tiredofthisnow: did you mean "lack of responsibility FOR his children?" I understand your anger. There are a few on here who have insinuated that I am bitter. Because he's married and has more kids etc. I do not care about any of that. I'm glad to be rid of him. What does piss me off is being used like a door mat, basically ripped off and shit on b/c of the financial mess he's dumped onto me. Omg - that poor woman can have him. Soon, she'll be put in the same boat I was only it will be even worse for her. He's already got her in a mountain of debt. I predict she will ultimately have to bankrupt and go live w/her parents, kids in tow.

[dav66]

No.

The payor knows they have a financial obligation to their existing children and this information should be used when determining to have a second family.

If the payor chooses to have another family, their obligation to their existing children should not diminish due to their choice. Having more kids or a second family is a choice. And ones responsibilities don't change because of bad decisions.

Think of it as buying a car. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

as most on a soapbox do, you have missed the point of my response. I did not 'have' another family, merely it is a blended family where all children are treated the same and as a family. that is all. I care for my children emotionally financially and physically [i put both roofs over their heads]. and i dont discriminate between between the families. My ex does

for example, when one of our 2 daughters moved in with me last june, suddenly spousal was an issue - because 'her' income dropped.

FRO is used as a weapon, not a tool to enforce obligations. that is the issue i am raising, but thanks for the economics lesson.

[dav66]

i give up. no one here seems able to see beyond their own beef or soapbox.
I am the one who has my children's best interests at heart - that is why i paid my exspouse for the child that was living with me for 6 months while she did nothing to inform FRO of the change in custody [why should she? no repercussion to her] while i struggled to provide a home to all.
That is the issue: FRO is a one way street, and as such is not operating in the best interest of the child. that is the point i am making - that is all. Vilify me all you wish, I know in my heart I am on the right side of this.

[hadenough]

Dav66: no one was speculating on your particular set of circumstances. Rather it was the blanket way in which you made some of your statements. Just b/c your ex wife is (you allege) using FRO as a "weapon" - doesn't mean that that's what everybody does, or that that's its purpose. Some of us really do NEED their powers of persuasion. I shop mostly @Thrift stores, get a minimal amount of groceries, have had to get my son's school to help offset some of the school costs (field trips etc). It's been really tough. POINT BEING: there are many single parents who do rely on proper Child Support and some of us (I know I am) are, at the mercy of a totally irresponsible ass when it comes to the other parent. The F.R.O. IS my only hope of getting what is owed so that my son and I can have a decent life. Coiuld I get a better job? Possibly. And I should, very soon - but the bs of this, and another Court matter I have w/"dad" has been a full time, un-paid JOB. So good on you if you are responsible, but some fathers aren't. Period Amen.

[HammerDad]

i give up. no one here seems able to see beyond their own beef or soapbox.

It wasn't a soap box. I am a payor, I will be for many years. I don't use FRO as neither my ex and I want the hassles. I give her post dated cheques, normally 6 months at a time. This works well for us.

I am the one who has my children's best interests at heart - that is why i paid my exspouse for the child that was living with me for 6 months while she did nothing to inform FRO of the change in custody [why should she? no repercussion to her] while i struggled to provide a home to all.

I think you are mistaken for who is responsible for what here. You put the onus on your ex, when the responsibility is yours. When there is a material change in circumstance (like the child changing residences) it is up to the person affected to file a motion and have the courts order said change.

You made the unfortunate mistake of relying on your ex, who has absolutely ZERO motivation, to update or provide documentation to FRO. As you said, why would she be in a rush? She has free money coming in.

Once the child resided with you, you should have filed a motion in court updating the custody situation. This should be done because without a new order, you will never have the comfort of being the custodial parent in the courts eyes. Further, FRO can only enforce what is on the court order/agreement. If you're court order to pay, they will always deem you as the payor whether or not the kid lives with you. You need a new order showing you as the custodial parent to cause your ex to pay (unless she is willing to first consent to you being removed from FRO and then second willingly pays you.

That is the issue: FRO is a one way street, and as such is not operating in the best interest of the child. that is the point i am making - that is all. Vilify me all you wish, I know in my heart I am on the right side of this.

Not villifying you, and yes FRO is a one way street. It was designed that way to ensure payors couldn't easily get out of paying. You just made the common mistake of relying on your unmotivated ex to make the changes when you should have been all over it like a dirty shirt.

[hadenough]

Thanks HD for another very informative post. One way street, weapon, tool, or Agency - whatever it is - I cannot wait to have them involved as the alternative (relying on ex to do the right thing) is NOT an option. I'm grateful that there are consequences in place through FRO's enforcement. The message is clear at least - pay on time and follow the rules and there shouldn't be a problem. I applaud ex partners that are fair with one another w/regards to the kids, that don't have to go through the F.R.O.

[tiredofthisnow]

Tiredofthisnow: did you mean "lack of responsibility FOR his children?" I understand your anger. There are a few on here who have insinuated that I am bitter. Because he's married and has more kids etc. I do not care about any of that. I'm glad to be rid of him. What does piss me off is being used like a door mat, basically ripped off and shit on b/c of the financial mess he's dumped onto me. Omg - that poor woman can have him. Soon, she'll be put in the same boat I was only it will be even worse for her. He's already got her in a mountain of debt. I predict she will ultimately have to bankrupt and go live w/her parents, kids in tow.

Sorry hadenough, yes FOR is what i meant. I don't believe any (or most) of us are bitter because our exes got remarried, I could care less what he does with his new wife. They DO NOT have any children together, and he still will not pay child support even though it is court ordered and he is registered with FRO. It's hard for some exes to realize that they cannot just forget about the family they have when they decide to move on, be responsible, grow up and be an adult for the love of god. (laughing my ass off b/c I'm sure that won't happen with my ex) LOL