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

I

Ivany

New member
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.
 
Nothing has to go through FRO, and doesn't unless it's been filed with FRO. If you're already going through FRO, the recipient can withdraw from FRO and choose to get paid directly.
 
blinkandimgone said:
Nothing has to go through FRO, and doesn't unless it's been filed with FRO. If you're already going through FRO, the recipient can withdraw from FRO and choose to get paid directly.
Click to expand...

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
 
If you are settling and providing your agreement for a rubber stamp at the conference, you can agree to it not going to FRO. Language will have to be included to note this as well as it being enforceable by FRO should the payor not pay support for a period of time.

If you go to trial or the judge needs to order it go through FRO then yes it will go through them.

FRO isn't the worst thing. If you agree to update annually you would just do an amending agreement and file that annually with FRO.
 
rockscan said:
If you are settling and providing your agreement for a rubber stamp at the conference, you can agree to it not going to FRO. Language will have to be included to note this as well as it being enforceable by FRO should the payor not pay support for a period of time.

If you go to trial or the judge needs to order it go through FRO then yes it will go through them.

FRO isn't the worst thing. If you agree to update annually you would just do an amending agreement and file that annually with FRO.
Click to expand...

"file that annually with FRO" means sending payment to recipient directly and update FRO once a year? does it need both party agree ? Thanks
 
No that means if your file is with FRO and you need to update annually, you agree and sign a motion to change on consent and then it is sent to FRO for update. It may actually be easier than that now. I saw something on the site about an update form.
 
Thanks alot. BTW, If the below presents in a court order, is it very hard for the applicant claiming child support after the child turning eighteen?

The applicant shall forbear from claiming any child support including s7 expenses, once the child turns eighteen.
 
Post secondary expenses will be ordered as will any medical expenses over $100. You shouldn't put that in your order.
 
The settlement conference judge asked two parties to come to a agreement to avoid trial. Two parties have an agreement on many things. What if both parties agree to the above clause? Will the judge take it out or disapprove the agreement? The judge might not order it? thanks.
 
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
blinkandimgone said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
noteasy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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-and-receiving-child-and-spousal-support
 
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.
 
Ivany said:
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.
Click to expand...

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? ​
 
JustQ said:
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? ​
Click to expand...

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 said:
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? ​
Click to expand...

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.
 
noteasy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top