Fro

[momforever1956]

Just wondering if anyone has had dealings with the FRO. I would appreciate any feedback as to what is the best and most effective way to deal with them. Are you the payee or the payor?

Thanks

 

[torontonian]

I've been with FRO as a payee since last summer. Best time to get a "live" person is first thing in the morning. Waiting for a return call, sometimes 2-3 days later (if at all) isn't great. The agents in charge of my file keep changing. Sometimes good, sometimes really moronic... I tend to fax my info/question, then follow up a week or so later with a call. Hope this helps...

 

[DowntroddenDad]

I am a payor.

I had signed a separation agreement that specified we would not be going through the FRO. So needless to say I was a little shocked when I got a letter from the FRO that claimed they were proceeding to garnish my wages.

I called my lawyer who confirmed that the payee could arbitrarily do this. Then I called the FRO. My agent was readily available, and explained that my wages would not be garnished so long as I paid on time. We discussed the fact that I had paid up to date up to that point (which she confirmed with my ex). And that was that. I haven't had to call since.

I don't know if my ex has had any issues as the payee, if she has, she hasn't mentioned it. And she is the type to mention it.

 

[SadAndTired]

I don't know if my ex has had any issues as the payee, if she has, she hasn't mentioned it. And she is the type to mention it.

This made me chuckle Downtrodden.

 

[Tayken]

I had signed a separation agreement that specified we would not be going through the FRO. So needless to say I was a little shocked when I got a letter from the FRO that claimed they were proceeding to garnish my wages.

As part of the agreement you signed state that it represented consent from both parties to withdraw from the Support Deduction Order (SDO). Furthermore, in addition to that you should have had this document signed by both parties.

Form Number: 006-FRO-006E
Edition date: 2005/07
Title: Notice of Withdrawal

http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/006-FRO-006E~2/$File/FRO-006E.pdf

You do it properly and the FRO will not touch the file. If the wording is screwed up and not done correctly... They will try to enforce. You can challenge them back if you really want.

I know of litigants who agree and even sign the SDO discharge form and the payee still try to go to FRO and have them enforce the order. FRO isn't too fond of people who do this by the way. They also inform the payee of the conduct of the other party and their refusal to service their request by the way. (To those thinking of pulling this "stunt".)

It is especially not a good idea when the order was ordered by a justice and there is a covering endorsement to that fact endorsing the release from SDO. Some times FRO will call the court house for instruction on what to do and the judge will have to explain it to them...

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[DowntroddenDad]

As part of the agreement you signed state that it represented consent from both parties to withdraw from the Support Deduction Order (SDO). Furthermore, in addition to that you should have had this document signed by both parties.

Form Number: 006-FRO-006E
Edition date: 2005/07
Title: Notice of Withdrawal

http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/006-FRO-006E~2/$File/FRO-006E.pdf

You do it properly and the FRO will not touch the file. If the wording is screwed up and not done correctly... They will try to enforce. You can challenge them back if you really want.

I know of litigants who agree and even sign the SDO discharge form and the payee still try to go to FRO and have them enforce the order. FRO isn't too fond of people who do this by the way. They also inform the payee of the conduct of the other party and their refusal to service their request by the way. (To those thinking of pulling this "stunt".)

It is especially not a good idea when the order was ordered by a justice and there is a covering endorsement to that fact endorsing the release from SDO. Some times FRO will call the court house for instruction on what to do and the judge will have to explain it to them...

Good Luck!
Tayken

The timing to mind was very deliberate.

She contacted the FRO two weeks after the agreement was signed. This was before I had filed for divorce. So we had a signed separation agreement but the courts hadn't seen it, no justice had approved it. I filed before the FRO had contacted me, so what the justice saw was in fact not what was in effect.

I can't help think she knew this. In addition to having a decent lawyer, she had worked prior to our marriage at one of the largest law firms in the country, so she is quite familiar with court processes. My lawyer basically responded that there was nothing to be done. I did ask if she would sign a consent to withdraw and she laughed at me.

 

[SadAndTired]

I am a payor.

I had signed a separation agreement that specified we would not be going through the FRO. So needless to say I was a little shocked when I got a letter from the FRO that claimed they were proceeding to garnish my wages.

I called my lawyer who confirmed that the payee could arbitrarily do this. Then I called the FRO. My agent was readily available, and explained that my wages would not be garnished so long as I paid on time. We discussed the fact that I had paid up to date up to that point (which she confirmed with my ex). And that was that. I haven't had to call since.

I don't know if my ex has had any issues as the payee, if she has, she hasn't mentioned it. And she is the type to mention it.

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry DD, I was typing at the same time as you were and had not read the above when I typed this post.

I wonder DD if when it was sent to the court, if it automatically went to FRO? When ex and I were at settlement conference, we had a consent order for interim support made. The lawyers (both sides) said that it is automatically sent to FRO and it is our responsibility to jointly "opt out". Interestingly enough I want out of FRO and ex wants it. (I receive SS and CS.)

It took 4 months before I received the documents for FRO. The package had 21 pages in it....

It is amazing the sheer number of questions they ask about the payor in order to be able to locate him/her. Including two names/numbers of friends and family, any professional or community groups, clubs, etc. Physical description. Financial information (including whether or not I know if he has assets, credit cards, bank account numbers, etc.)

I wonder if your ex simply got the package as a regular procedure when your SA was filed and decided to send it in?

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry DD, I was typing at the same time as you were and had not read the above when I typed this post.

 

[Tayken]

She contacted the FRO two weeks after the agreement was signed. This was before I had filed for divorce. So we had a signed separation agreement but the courts hadn't seen it, no justice had approved it. I filed before the FRO had contacted me, so what the justice saw was in fact not what was in effect.

"A signed agreement holds just as much weight as a court order" to quote the Honourable Madame Justice Mossip. If the agreement to SDO was well written FRO should not have enforced the order.

Highly conflicted payees like FRO... They often use them to harass and try and get the other party in trouble. I have seen some interesting things that payee's try to pull with FRO to create conflict. They often try to use FRO to cause nightmares with S7 expenses and make all sorts of bogus claims gainst the agreement.

I can't help think she knew this. In addition to having a decent lawyer, she had worked prior to our marriage at one of the largest law firms in the country, so she is quite familiar with court processes. My lawyer basically responded that there was nothing to be done. I did ask if she would sign a consent to withdraw and she laughed at me.

Well, the pattern of behaviour to leverage FRO as a tool to annoy the other party is well known and lawyers often instruct clients in a "grey way" on how to do this. Suffice to say, the justices even know that people do this and I am seeing more orders resulting from "high conflict" situations where the justices are endorsing and ordering specifically that both parties have to withdraw and sign the SDO.

It is also a common pattern of behaviour identified by William Eddy of highly conflicted litigants... They attempt to use service providers to create conflict in matters. (FRO is a service provider by the way.)

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[Tayken]

I wonder DD if when it was sent to the court, if it automatically went to FRO?

I think the problem he had was that the separation agreement was what was supplied not the final order registered with the court. If he had a clause in his agreement that the SDO was to be withdrawn the court would have acted on it. But, it does raise an interesting question how FRO deals with a non-registered separation agreement that has a clause to withdraw SDO.

The court clerks would have requested the signed SDO and the justice would have requested it as well. (Generally, mistakes do happen.) The challenge being is that matters went to FRO directly and DD didn't have a signed SDO.

Seems like a bit of a loop hole was exploited to me.

When ex and I were at settlement conference, we had a consent order for interim support made. The lawyers (both sides) said that it is automatically sent to FRO and it is our responsibility to jointly "opt out". Interestingly enough I want out of FRO and ex wants it. (I receive SS and CS.)

There is a reason the other party possibly wanted it which you may have answered yourself... It is a shame that this does happen as the processing time in some areas for FRO is 4-8 months I am told. The delay is often used by parties to prolong payment and then for the retro request a payment plan be put in place whereby the pay the retro support owed for like $50 a month... Yes, it is manipulative and awful.

It took 4 months before I received the documents for FRO. The package had 21 pages in it....

It is amazing the sheer number of questions they ask about the payor in order to be able to locate him/her. Including two names/numbers of friends and family, any professional or community groups, clubs, etc. Physical description. Financial information (including whether or not I know if he has assets, credit cards, bank account numbers, etc.)

That is because they operate as a credit and collections agency. Same thing happens when you have an outstanding bill basically. The collections agency is provided the same information by the person who they are collecting debts from.

In my opinion FRO needs a serious overhaul in Ontario. There are too many loop holes in how they process materials for either side of the coin.

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[SadAndTired]

There is a reason the other party possibly wanted it which you may have answered yourself... It is a shame that this does happen as the processing time in some areas for FRO is 4-8 months I am told. The delay is often used by parties to prolong payment and then for the retro request a payment plan be put in place whereby the pay the retro support owed for like $50 a month... Yes, it is manipulative and awful.

Well, actually ex pays faithfully, in full, each month directly into my account. There are no arrears for support or section 7 and I told FRO that. He said his lawyer told him that FRO will provide him with a tax receipt for taxes each year and protect him from false claims that he didn't pay (even though he has bank documents/proof each month and I have acknowledged every payment in the last 18 months).

I am worried about FRO's lag time/delays as my budget is really fragile.

I told ex that it was like he was signing himself up for voluntary probation and having the government look over his shoulder when it wasn't necessary. He had heard nothing negative about FRO and did none of his own research. He simply believes what his lawyer says.

 

[Tayken]

Well, actually ex pays faithfully, in full, each month directly into my account.

That is good to hear that it is being paid directly in your matter while it is being processed.

He said his lawyer told him that FRO will provide him with a tax receipt for taxes each year and protect him from false claims that he didn't pay (even though he has bank documents/proof each month and I have acknowledged every payment in the last 18 months).

Did you find that an odd statement to be told by the other party as to why they wanted to use FRO? I find it a bit odd. You are correct in identifying that the bank-to-bank transfers would be just as traceable (even more tracible in my personal opinion) than going through FRO. FRO really (my opinion) should be only for people who defaulted to pay. It shouldn't be a go-to for every case of collecting support. The banking systems have been integrated, in my opinion, in such a manner it makes FRO-up-front kind of silly. They should be purely a "collections" agency called upon by people when they are not getting paid.

Not sure why our tax dollars should be paying for an organization to do something that reasonable adults can do through banks already?

I am worried about FRO's lag time/delays as my budget is really fragile.

Once the flow of payment is going it isn't a problem from what I am told. It is that initial hump that is the problem for most. From what you have disclosed the other party is paying you directly currently so, it should just flow easily. It is the "lag" to establishing the flow that I hear all the complaints about FRO generally. Once established the complaints turn to adjusting support, S7 expenses, and other stuff... But, rarely that the money isn't getting to them... (Unless the person is unemployed and FRO has nowhere to get the money from.)

I told ex that it was like he was signing himself up for voluntary probation and having the government look over his shoulder when it wasn't necessary.

Well, at least you don't have to look over the shoulder. But, I do agree with your position. It just seems odd that someone would want that. So many payors fight FRO enforcements... Oh well, such as life I guess. You gave him a valid out. He didn't take it.

He had heard nothing negative about FRO and did none of his own research. He simply believes what his lawyer says./QUOTE]

Well, I don't think it will effect you much though. Once the payments are flowing they usually go smoothly. The real challenge may be adjusting child support payments each year and notifying FRO though. Just be mindful of the issues FRO has with everything. It will probably fall unfortunately on your lap to deal with when (and if) something screws up. Payors are not quick to fix problems... (For obvious reasons...)

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[momforever1956]

Highly conflicted payees like FRO... They often use them to harass and try and get the other party in trouble. I have seen some interesting things that payee's try to pull with FRO to create conflict. They often try to use FRO to cause nightmares with S7 expenses and make all sorts of bogus claims gainst the agreement.- as written by Tayken''''''''''''''''''''''


What happens if the payor is the highly conflicted litigant. What happens if you agreement states, "The wife will not register or enforce the support through the FRO unless the husband is in default for more than seven days after which written notice has been given."
Both parties along with their respective counsel has signed this, and now the seven days have lasped. Isn't it in the best interest of the payor not to deal with the FRO?

 

[Tayken]

What happens if the payor is the highly conflicted litigant.

What happens? The possibly highly conflicted litigant will engage in:

a. Projection of blame;
b. Emotional reasoning;
c. Avoidance; and
d. Conflict

The payor will not respond to FRO requests. They will "avoid" FRO. If they are skilled at avoidance as a pattern of dispute resolution they will employ all sorts of creative and interesting tactics. They will state they don't have access to the internet, they can't afford internet, that they didn't get the notices from FRO, they will suddenly lose your emails (say they never got the). They will avoid reaching a reasonable agreement. etc...

Avoidance is generally the pattern that they engage in more often than not with the FRO and even the courts. Some will directly engage with FRO and just try to wrap them up. Ultimately, the direct conflict style possibly "highly conflicted" will bring the matter right back into the court room possibly on a Form 15 (if in Ontario) for a change to support. Form 15 (adjustment to support) is interesting because it is supposed to be directly related to financial adjustments and not allegations of parental conduct... But, the highly conflicted have a loop hole where they can attach to Form 15 information. This is usually where they stuff their allegations that you are an awful parent.

The "issue" is never "the issue" for the highly conflicted. It is often their disrupted thinking and inability to problem solve that causes them the most grief in life. They constantly are looking for a target of blame to shoulder the responsibility. Avoidant-type highly conflicted people grew up with overbearing / overprotective parents that "Ruled" their lives in my hypothesis (non clinical opinion).

What happens if you agreement states, "The wife will not register or enforce the support through the FRO unless the husband is in default for more than seven days after which written notice has been given."

Written notice, just to warn you would be a registered letter. I wouldn't depend on sending an email as the "written notice" BTW. I would treat this as proper service under the Family Law Rules. You don't need FRO writing back to you stating the other parent never got the "written notice" for the above mentioned excuses. (e.g. I don't have internet access, my email was shut down, I didn't get the email, etc...)

Both parties along with their respective counsel has signed this, and now the seven days have lasped. Isn't it in the best interest of the payor not to deal with the FRO?

It is in the best interests of the payor to be reasonable and make a reasonable offer to settle in accordance with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules. But, if you didn't get this and got no response and just avoidance to the request my recommendation is to make an offer to settle on the matter as best you can... Serve it on the other party. That way if they do go the Form 15 route (direct-conflict) you can demonstrate on costs determination that you were being reasonable.

It may be hard to enforce that clause with FRO... I am no expert but, it is best to consult with a lawyer. If the matter involves an adjustment to child support or spousal support in place, I am of the opinion that FRO may require that to be determined by the court. They are a collections agency and NOT the court. If they cannot for example operate on a one-sided accounting of what the increase should be... My understanding is that they will ask the dispute be resolved before the court (or for the parties to come to an agreement).

Good Luck!
Tayken

 

[momforever1956]

Thanks Tayken,

Just to clarify, a letter has already been sent from me to my lawyer stating that 7 days have lapsed. I do not engage with the payor for anything. Our children are adults so CS is not the issue. It took 3 years and 9 days to get disclosure, (250k of legal and accounting fees, that was just mine) and the payor was basically tricked into signing an arbitration agreement, ( thinking he was going to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from me).
The arbitrator, ( a well known, highly respected, Family Laywer, Mediator and Arbitrator) inserted in our agreement the following.
"This sum shall be fixed and non-variable regardless of any material change in circumstance that may occur within the next five years."
Reasonable is not an issue as I see it. He signed this 1 year ago and unless a catastrophic circumstance has occurred he is in default.
I just really don't understand why a payor would choose to get the FRO involved as it seems they have power to confiscate liscences, passports, etc.

 

[arabian]

It might be something to do with your ex reorganizing his personal finances or he could be facing an audit of some sort. When my ex went into bankruptcy he used the MEP/court order to reduce the amount of money he had to pay into his bankruptcy estate. I'm not saying you need FRO documentation/statement to do this, it just makes it easier (I was told this).

Anytime you can get a free collection service on your team I would think it would be a good thing. In your case, with a substantial SS order in place, having it go through an agency that can go after DL and passport isn't a bad thing. You never know when you might need this assistance in the future.

 

[momforever1956]

I agree Arabian, as I believe the restriction I was given of registering with the FRO was to protect the payor, (assuming he would be acting in good faith). So when we get lawyers or gov't agencies involved it is the high conflict litigant who enables and drives this situation, therefore we should not be presume it is the one who is the recipient. Maybe I will rock the boat with this one, but it does seem that it is assumed the payee is the high conflict one and this is not always the case.

 

[arabian]

Having a 3rd party (in this case FRO) intervene on your behalf is good. If your ex is a slime-ball he will have to pass FRO's litmus test and be made accountable for non payment. I understand it is quite annoying and I wouldn't want to have to try to come to an arrangement with these people.

Another reason to be registered with FRO would be to put you 1st in line. If your ex shacks up with someone else, and they end up getting a judgement against him, being first in line now will save you time and anxiety in the future.