FRO enforcement
- Thread starter Underdog
- Start date
- Status
representingself
New member
Nope 
FRO enforces court orders....
FRO enforces court orders....
Notadeadbeatdad
New member
FRO only follows court orders.
Glad to hear that....
However, just to make sure that she doesn't have a recourse... Currently, I'm making cs payments that was estimated by a mediator (in open mediation). However, we have not officially agreed to CS payments.
Can she take mediation notes to FRO and the fact that I have been making payments and have them enforce CS based on that ?
However, just to make sure that she doesn't have a recourse... Currently, I'm making cs payments that was estimated by a mediator (in open mediation). However, we have not officially agreed to CS payments.
Can she take mediation notes to FRO and the fact that I have been making payments and have them enforce CS based on that ?
Kenny
New member
FRO enforcement
Unfortunately, FRO will only enforce an agreement registered with the court.
Another very important point: If you are paying child support outside of any court order, it is very very important that you make sure that you can prove the money you are paying is for child support.
I paid child support from 2000 to 2004, when my ex-spouse discovered that any money not documented as child support could be just considered a gift. So right she was, I received a letter from the FSOS New Brunswick demanding $53,000.00 in arrears child support.
After several meetings and a support hearing, the ONLY reason I got "off-the-hook" was because I made electronic payments through my military pay office where the notes on my file made reference to the court order, the amounts went to my ex-spouse's bank account and the amounts were the same as the court order. If any of those items had been missed, I may have owed the money again.
NEVER USE CASH. If you are using checks, use the memo section to indicate child support, the amount and for what month.
Ken
Unfortunately, FRO will only enforce an agreement registered with the court.
Another very important point: If you are paying child support outside of any court order, it is very very important that you make sure that you can prove the money you are paying is for child support.
I paid child support from 2000 to 2004, when my ex-spouse discovered that any money not documented as child support could be just considered a gift. So right she was, I received a letter from the FSOS New Brunswick demanding $53,000.00 in arrears child support.
After several meetings and a support hearing, the ONLY reason I got "off-the-hook" was because I made electronic payments through my military pay office where the notes on my file made reference to the court order, the amounts went to my ex-spouse's bank account and the amounts were the same as the court order. If any of those items had been missed, I may have owed the money again.
NEVER USE CASH. If you are using checks, use the memo section to indicate child support, the amount and for what month.
Ken
spiritflower
New member
Wow! It is no wonder that so many men here think that woman are snakes.
Thats just out and out WRONG and disgraceful
I am really not sure how people live with themselves after screwing a significant other over, even if it is an ex.
Humanity sucks.
Thats just out and out WRONG and disgraceful
I am really not sure how people live with themselves after screwing a significant other over, even if it is an ex.
Humanity sucks.
billiechic
New member
FYI: you should not use "men" and "women" in the above statement. It should be "payors" and "payees".
yes, it is disgusting!
yes, it is disgusting!
NotSoNiceEx
New member
The same thing happened to my husband, he paid his ex outside of a courtorder table amounts for the seven months before the order, in court the judge congratulated him for making the effort to care for his children without an order, then the ex told FRO she never received any monies for child support, when my husband sent them the bank receipts and money orders to her account, she claimed it was given as gifts. He then had an arrears that they garnisheed from his paycheque, more than half each month while trying to live, (she kicked him out). Anyways, do not pay the receipient any money directly only through FRO.
spiritflower
New member
No disrespect billiechic but since I am expressing MYSELF I will use whatever words I choose.
Thanks
billiechic
New member
Go right ahead, express yourself. You just look sexist then if that is exactly what you meant. Be prepared for some choice comments.
I for one (woman) and offended that you agree with that generalization. It is not "women" who are snakes, but payees that screw over payors who actually pay their CS. WTH then am I ( a woman who is a payor!)???
I for one (woman) and offended that you agree with that generalization. It is not "women" who are snakes, but payees that screw over payors who actually pay their CS. WTH then am I ( a woman who is a payor!)???
The only way FRO will enforce something is if you and your ex went to a settlement conference, an agreement was made and then that agreement was made into a court order. Then it could be enforced by FRO. The hard part would be getting him into a settlement conference but you can try different ways to get this done.
spiritflower
New member
BIG **** ing deal!
You want a hero biscuit or what?????
If THIS is how you feel then it is YOUR issue not mine so please keep it to yourself.
You obviously must be someone REAL important here........
The politically correct 'word' princess payor.
Oh so special
representingself
New member
Hey Spiritflower...
I don't know who shit in your cornflakes this morning.... but you are acting like a imbecile.
There is no need for you to fly off the handle at people just because you disagree with them.
You are deliberately trying to antagonize people who already have enough shit on their plates.
If you want to ask sincere questions and reciprocate with honest advice, then have at it....
If you want to be a useless jackass, then take your bullshit elsewhere, because it is not welcome here.
I don't know who shit in your cornflakes this morning.... but you are acting like a imbecile.
There is no need for you to fly off the handle at people just because you disagree with them.
You are deliberately trying to antagonize people who already have enough shit on their plates.
If you want to ask sincere questions and reciprocate with honest advice, then have at it....
If you want to be a useless jackass, then take your bullshit elsewhere, because it is not welcome here.
spiritflower
New member
LMAO.....
Like a give a flying **** what you think either.
Its a tag team thing huh?
You guys need a life.
logicalvelocity
Moderator
LMAO.....
Like a give a flying **** what you think either.
Its a tag team thing huh?
You guys need a life.
Fair enough - but why did you waste your time responding?
billiechic
New member
HAHAHA! I'm responding because this kid of Poop amuses me. Spiritflower, if you stopped to actually READ my post I AGREED with you (for the most part). You want to get pissed off, go ahead. Me. I'm smilin a big ole' grin!
Although not the most delicate of flowers, Spiritflower is accurate in linking women to payees in family court matters.More than 95% of parents entitled to receiving support payments in North America are women.
Having said that, their "snake"'iness is a product of a failed family court system that gives women extraordinary leverage (through biased laws) to punish their husbands.
Statistics show that 70% of separations are initiated by women and their main reason for separating - is not abuse as most believe - but not being loved or appreciated by their husbands.
The biased court system is a result of an affirmative action of sort to make up for past injustice exacted on women. (For example, a popular practice in 18th century America was to take divorced wives to a market where they were sold to the highest bidder...)
Still.... Trying to remedy a problem by creating a new one is not the answer. 2 wrongs don't make it right.
Having said that, their "snake"'iness is a product of a failed family court system that gives women extraordinary leverage (through biased laws) to punish their husbands.
Statistics show that 70% of separations are initiated by women and their main reason for separating - is not abuse as most believe - but not being loved or appreciated by their husbands.
The biased court system is a result of an affirmative action of sort to make up for past injustice exacted on women. (For example, a popular practice in 18th century America was to take divorced wives to a market where they were sold to the highest bidder...)
Still.... Trying to remedy a problem by creating a new one is not the answer. 2 wrongs don't make it right.
billiechic
New member
no, the snakiness is a result of angry PEOPLE punishing the ex spouses. YOu don't have to be a woman to be snaky!
I totally believe this statistic. But please explain why someone should stay in a marriage where they are not loved or appreciated. If 70% of the marriages end because women feel unloved and unappreciated, then society is failing women.
Underdog:
The court system, as flawed as it may be, isn't biased against men. The common myth that men are somehow "screwed" when it comes to family court is perpetuated on the fact (as you pointed out yourself in your post) that 95% of support payors are indeed men. I work for FRO and I can tell you there are as many men out there paying support who agree with the amount they are to pay then those who think they are getting punished by the court.
I deal with payors every day of the week and the majority of them are decent guys who may have some resentment towards the recipient but still do what they have to do to provide for their kids. They may like or not like FRO but they deal with it, they make their payments on time and for the most part, you don't hear from them until either a new court order is done or support is to end.
You can believe what you want to believe about the court system or even history but when it comes right down to it, your role as a payor (whether you are a man or woman) is to provide for your family and that includes your ex -spouse. You chose that person to have a family with, so the responsibility extends to after the relationship is over. The court rulings are the way they are because of years where payors either refused to provide or walked away from their responsibilities as the primary breadwinners.
I'm not saying your attitude is wrong, it's just that it's 2010, not 1950, things have changed and you need to just accept things for what they are, whether you agree with them or not.
The court system, as flawed as it may be, isn't biased against men. The common myth that men are somehow "screwed" when it comes to family court is perpetuated on the fact (as you pointed out yourself in your post) that 95% of support payors are indeed men. I work for FRO and I can tell you there are as many men out there paying support who agree with the amount they are to pay then those who think they are getting punished by the court.
I deal with payors every day of the week and the majority of them are decent guys who may have some resentment towards the recipient but still do what they have to do to provide for their kids. They may like or not like FRO but they deal with it, they make their payments on time and for the most part, you don't hear from them until either a new court order is done or support is to end.
You can believe what you want to believe about the court system or even history but when it comes right down to it, your role as a payor (whether you are a man or woman) is to provide for your family and that includes your ex -spouse. You chose that person to have a family with, so the responsibility extends to after the relationship is over. The court rulings are the way they are because of years where payors either refused to provide or walked away from their responsibilities as the primary breadwinners.
I'm not saying your attitude is wrong, it's just that it's 2010, not 1950, things have changed and you need to just accept things for what they are, whether you agree with them or not.
Rioe
Well-known member
I don't mean this to sound as though I'm disagreeing with what was said but I do have to offer an opinion on your choice of words. Now maybe in this case there isn't an injustice but you can't just blindly accept everything. Sometimes it's not good to accept things you don't agree with. That's how we change the world.
Sure, the system isn't fair. I'm becoming painfully aware of that in my own case. But to change it, we have to work through the system instead of just railing in anger. And is what we want to change it to better in general, or maybe just in our case?
- Status