Getting let go becuz of FRO!

[tiredofthisnow]

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.

I'm confused why you would think your ex would let FRO know. No one is on a soap box, they are all quite helpful. We all take responsibility for what we want in life, phone FRO and file papers with the court regarding the change. My ex believed he could still collect money for children no longer living with him, even tried to convince the judge he shouldn't pay for them. Thankfully the courts thought differently and now he is registered with FRO. With any luck by the time my child is done college he will see some of that money. The process may be slow but it does work.

[hadenough]

I'm not in FRO just yet but I'm beginning to realize that it really is going to be a slow process. I too have thought - might be high school Graduation by the time any of this kicks in. I had so much faith before. In the Courts. In Justice. I no longer do. I was so naïve and with each day that passes, I know I have to sell my house and rent from now on b/c there is no recovery from the mess of this. Ex bankrupted (it's Fraud) - but needless to say, over 150g in debt fell onto me. There is no job I can get, no support that will come fast enough that will pay/offset the colossal damage. I fought as hard as I could - to keep the house my son and I live in - but after 4 years of Family Court (and there's Court coming up for the bankruptcy) - I can't (financially) recover from this. I have to laugh a little now - at how "off" the mark I was on a lot of the issues. Justice. Fairness. It just doesn't come fast enough.

So time to stop putting off the inevitable. So if some on here choose to say FRO is used as a weapon/tool - whatever. If it comes up to bite someone in the ass years later - I say "GOOD" - call it Karma, poetic justice or whatever.

[AtALoss]

In regards to a person being let go from a job because of FRO well it does happen. Games are played unfortunately.

Under the law it is illegal to fire a person for the simple fact of having a garnishee against them and this includes ANY garnishee.

I am not defending any position in saying this but this is what the law is and there are heavy fines to the employer for any non compliance. Which means they have no chioce but to follow the orders. Any complaints to that regard should be first presented to the labour board and if not satisfied the court.

[JB514]

Have to agree with the poster that said its unfair that new families aren't taken into consideration. Now I am talking about a reasonable person who is not trying to get out of paying.
Lets say the family was still together and they decided to have another baby. They will still support and care for the first child, but there would be some compromises. Now why thats not considered in regards to the new family.

As for the comment about how "why should you care about how many kids he has, and if he can't afford more kids then not have them"-something in those lines. Well, why doesn't the government say same thing to low income or no income parent/single parent?
So it kind of looks like this:
Recipient: receives CS, possible some income (and if they are smart enough like my ex) substantial income working for cash, + benefits from the government for the child/ being single parent. Now if this person had another kid (lets say from another partner), the government benefits would increase, another CS order issued etc. So in a way the recipient is in no way "penalized" or disregarded for having more kids and in fact the government recognizes the need for more money (they might not pay much, but thats not the point).

Payor: Pays CS, receives no benefits, can't claim the child on taxes. God forbid he/she has another family and tries to make it work for both households. Courts/FRO/the ex will not take that into consideration.
Why such a difference?

[Rioe]

Why would you go out and get a new car complete with nasty loan, if you were already stretched to the limit with a long term commitment to your mortgage? You might really really want and adore the new car, but your bank isn't going to drop your mortgage payments for you. You examine all your previous commitments when you decide if you can afford another.

The difference between you having a new child with your second family and having a subsequent child if your marriage had stayed intact is that all persons involved would be involved in the decision. Your ex has no involvement in your choice to expand your second family. Not to mention the child in the hypothetically still-intact family probably wouldn't come with as many expenses.

[hadenough]

RIOE; well put. Thank you.

[JB514]

I mean why is it ok for the Recipient to have more kids and be rewarded for it, but as a payor- he/she is selfish and has not considered the "well-being" of the 1st child. Comparing cars or mortgages is a good example, but life is so much more than that. You move on and try to live an ok life, but other people that can't move on for whatever reason, hate you for it.
And I am not talking about all or nothing. It is not a matter of not being able to afford a second family, it is a matter of Why aren't they considered?

[blinkandimgone]

I mean why is it ok for the Recipient to have more kids and be rewarded for it, but as a payor- he/she is selfish and has not considered the "well-being" of the 1st child. Comparing cars or mortgages is a good example, but life is so much more than that. You move on and try to live an ok life, but other people that can't move on for whatever reason, hate you for it.
And I am not talking about all or nothing. It is not a matter of not being able to afford a second family, it is a matter of Why aren't they considered?

How is the recipient being reqrded for having more kids? The only time they would get more child support from someone for having more kids is if they went on to have more children with the support payor?

When you're paying child support for the kids you currently have you can't go back and decide not to have those kids. When you decide to go ahead and have more kids with someone else that's a decision you're consciously making and your finances and ability to provide for more children should be taken into consideration (by you) before doing it.

It's not rocket surgery.

[kat41]

FRO Methods

I was advised by FRO that they garnish wages regardless of payors situation. As a new order they wont accept post dated chqs so I have to mail monthly. I am on medical leave so they cant garnish but when you first receive the info and after talking to them that is the method used from the start, threfore it has not necessarily got anything to do with compliance. I dont like it though as it suggests to many people there has been an issue and this is like a penalty when there are no grounds

[hadenough]

Actually, they ARE considered. I won't quote my final decision chapter and verse but the fact tht ex has 2 young kids was taken into account; With Case Law Reference. He plays the broke card - but the numbers don't lie, or at least not as much as he does/did. He was found to have in excess of 60k in UNdeclared income, was using income splitting on his taxes w/his spouse in an effort to give credence to his "brokeness" - and all sorts of bs. There are plenty out there like him. Having more kids, living the high life and crying 'broke' when it suits. We've all heard the saying "you can't suck and blow at the same time." Funny b/c in a sense he does both. He sucks. And he blows. Fortunately, his lies were revealed. Can't stay lucky forever. The thing about lying or running away is you've got to 'stay' lucky. Luck runs out sooner or later. I personally don't care if he has 10 kids. If he can afford it - God bless every little darling - but not while he's having an adverse impact on how my/our child lives. He's got rrsps for himself now. RESP's for his 2 "new kids" - and what happened to our child's? It got snatched in his bs bankruptcy that he filed - the Trustee took it. Gone with the wind. So pardon me if I get a good laugh out of the fact that one day it will be pay-back time and maybe FRO can go do some 'snatching' to start putting things right. By all means though: to those who can afford to have kids and new families - go for it - if you can meet all of your previous obligations.

[kat41]

Im not sure if I am replying appropriately to the thread. I was just pointing out that I have 50/50 custody and have to pay cs to my ex began Nov 2010. As was expected it took several months but when I received notice I paid to date in one payment and sent 6 months of postdated chqs which they returned. The first thing I got was a notice advising I was in arrears, as I had to wait for them and was prepared to pay it seemed harsh. Also thre was a form indicating that I was Required to provide info regarding employment as they would directly garnishee as a matter of procedure. Due to medical leave I didnt have to provide although they did try to send it to Her Magesy the Queen, which is federal government Income tax, child tax credit etc.. As I was never in arrears they terminated this request when I called as was comletely confused.
I was advised initially and again on the phone that I have to provide employer info if available as part of their enforcement power. I definitely went through quite a time have a stack of letters from them and have never been late or missed. I got these almost daily the first couple of months it was ridiculous, treated as a deadbeat for absolutely no reason! Finally as the letters continued and when I called they advised it was OK to disregard, I requested a letter to that effect. I received the letter along with a letter stating that if I ever required this agin there would be a charge of $35. This is after numerous mixups, errors etc on their part. I was threatened as well with penalties, made my head swim I had been totally adhering to order. I definitely do not want it taken from my emplyer when I return to work. It is personal and I have not done anything for this to be necessary, still gives a bad impression! I dont understand how people can get away with what they do given their power. It is dangerous to have that much power and such inadequate practices. Who are they accountable to?Great idea for nonpaying but what about others who are treated like criminals and threatened/harrased and charged $ for FRO to correct their own errors

[hadenough]

They should only be taking such a hard line w/those who are non-compliant. It's unfortunate that they appear in many ways, to have de-sensitized to ppl like yourself who are doing the right thing and playing by the rules. Hey, it's the Government. Go figure. Good Luck, sounds like they can really rock a person's boat.