Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child Support & "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada"

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by #1StepMom View Post
    My husband and I realize that they can suspend his driver's license... but from what we hear, it takes years for them to reach the point of actually doing so! So, we've got time. ;-)
    not ture, most letters are now systematically automatically sent out. 1st notice to suspend went out 4 months after I couldn't pay the whole amount and I was even paying a small amount (borrowed). The FLIC was great in helping to prepare the motion against the FRO to not suspend the drivers license but gives you only 6 months to come to a resolution.

    Hopefully your offer to settle goes well...

    Comment


    • #17
      Let me clarify something. FRO (and other maintenance enforcement programs) CANNOT change the amount you pay!!! Only the court can do that. There is no use complaining about there hardheartedness - they are forced to enforce the order that is there.

      If you lose your job - go back to court and get your order changed. The Child Support Guidelines say your support is based on your income, and your income has gone down. So the court will lower your support. (One proviso - if you quit your job, you're going to have a problem, as the court doesn't have to accept your income if you are intentionally unemployed.)

      And no, FRO doesn't contact debtors to enquire about their ability to pay. It wouldn't help anyway. If you tell them you can't pay, then they move to enforcement. If you tell them you can pay (but you're not paying) then they move to enforcement. They don't have a choice in that - they are mandated by the legislation to enforce.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by workinginthesystem View Post
        Let me clarify something. FRO (and other maintenance enforcement programs) CANNOT change the amount you pay!!! Only the court can do that. There is no use complaining about there hardheartedness - they are forced to enforce the order that is there.

        If you lose your job - go back to court and get your order changed. The Child Support Guidelines say your support is based on your income, and your income has gone down. So the court will lower your support. (One proviso - if you quit your job, you're going to have a problem, as the court doesn't have to accept your income if you are intentionally unemployed.)

        And no, FRO doesn't contact debtors to enquire about their ability to pay. It wouldn't help anyway. If you tell them you can't pay, then they move to enforcement. If you tell them you can pay (but you're not paying) then they move to enforcement. They don't have a choice in that - they are mandated by the legislation to enforce.
        Working... that's all great in theory... and I know that's what's written in the Family Law Rules and Child Support Guidelines... but in reality, it's a different story.

        Long story short... when my husband lost his job and was unable to find new employment immediately, and the CS recipient refused to come to a fairer CS agreement in light of the unfortunate situation, he took the matter to court to get a reduction. For 6 months he waited to go in front of a judge. In the meantime, he continued to pay the previously court-ordered amount with loaned money, thinking he would get back-paid what he overpaid after he lost his job. Three days before his court date, he started a new position (at a salary greater than his 2008 total income, on which was based the previous amount of support). The judge did not care that my husband had been unemployed for 6 months. She only cared that he had *just* obtained a new position 3 days before, a position that paid more, and she INCREASED his income. As for the 6 months that he paid using loaned money, based on an income he did not have... that was considered a "gift" and the issue was not even touched by the judge. So, instead of getting a reduction, his CS was increased. Sadly, that fancy new job did not last and the company went under, causing my husband to lose this higher income on which his support was now based only 1 month after the court date. He immediately went back to court to get it changed... and was told that he was "premature" in his request and ordered to pay costs to the other party!

        How is THAT a fair system?

        All my husband wants is for child support payments to be fair and based on HIS INCOME. He wants his payments to take into account any fluctuation in income, high or low. Of course, the CS recipient agrees to increasing child support when my husband's income goes up, yet refuses to sign off on any papers when his income decreases or he loses his job.

        And being a responsible adult and father.... by the time he gets to court several months later, he has found a new job, and so the judge decides EACH TIME to base his child support on the "current" income, without regard to the months he spent unemployed.

        This has been our experience with the system. Perhaps it has worked fair in your case, but every time my husband has gone to court for a FAIR ruling, he has gotten screwed time and time again.

        That is why we no longer trust the court system. And with the CS recipient not wanting to abide by the court order when it comes to calculating child support, we hoped that perhaps FRO were able to enforce the court ordered CS amount calculations... and not just the payments.

        Wishful thinking, that's all. ;-)

        Comment


        • #19
          You're right - that is not fair at all. I wish I could offer some kind of explanation or justification for that, but I can't. She should have estimated his 2009 income, using the EI income and the new job income, and based the new support on that amount.

          A lot of people vary their support annually based on the last year's income. While that can cause hardship because of the delay in recognizing changes in income - at least it's accurate.

          Comment


          • #20
            What Anon and Representingself claims is true. All of that will happen and then some. FRO garnisheed my spouses EI at 80% on his first check so watch for anything like that. Legally under a garnishsee they can only take a max of 50%. Just advise anyone to be meticulous with thier records and anything make sure its done proper.
            Once all is said and done, support is terminated. It is difficult to get your life back. For us it took 4 yrs worth of arguing with Equifax to get them to change things. Now his report has a notaion of fraud by FRO. On a hopeful note it is these kinds of things that we hope will be getting changed. Hoping for some equity to be given to a support payor.

            Comment

            Our Divorce Forums
            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
            Working...
            X