Getting let go becuz of FRO!

[HammerDad]

but a payor has a right to provide for his [or rearely ] her children as well - or new families.

No.

The payor knows they have a financial obligation to their existing children and this information should be used when determining to have a second family.

If the payor chooses to have another family, their obligation to their existing children should not diminish due to their choice. Having more kids or a second family is a choice. And ones responsibilities don't change because of bad decisions.

Think of it as buying a car. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

 

[tiredofthisnow]

The payor does have a responsibility to pay for his/her children. I paid, through FRO for 10 years or more (woman) and now that the tables have turned my ex, who doesn't have other children, or a job, as he chooses not to work, new wife supports him, REFUSES to pay.
I find it's the lack of responsibility of his children that makes me very angry. Grow up, stop being a dead beat and pay!

 

[hadenough]

3 cheers for HammerDad! You said what I was "trying" to - and very well I might add! Before I got a court order, (and ya he's ignoring that) ex was "voluntarily" paying $400/mo. Driving a bmw and taking trips etc. Before the Birth of his 1st child (w/new wife) in "09 he sent a chq for $300 w/a note attached that said "I can no longer afford to send the extra $100, as we are expecting a new baby." Fast fwd to late 2011, and baby #2 came bouncing along. The court order was released in the Fall of 2011 and he is ordered to pay $1300/mo on an imputed income. He can sing the blues all he likes. His new family lives far better off than we do (she hasn't gone to court w/him yet) - but he got away all that time with his meagre (sp?) $300 donation - and this judgment? Looks good on him. Previous lawyer familiar w/the case and the Court we had trial at said "he got off easy."

And he did. Now he can deal w/FRO b/c I am tired of his financial bullying and bullshit in general. If he wants to ride around on a bicycle and not pay, I will have to deal with that. My hope is that he will once and for all cooperate. But it's not his "m.o" - whatever. If he keeps on having kids, I will do whatever it takes to see that my son is looked after. Preferably w/ex's cooperation. If not, I really don't care how bad the consequences get for him. That will be his own doing. A shame really, b/c the "new" family will bear the brunt of the stress as well. PS: the trial Judge DID take into account, his "new" family, and his ability to pay CS/SS in her final order.

 

[hadenough]

Tiredofthisnow: did you mean "lack of responsibility FOR his children?" I understand your anger. There are a few on here who have insinuated that I am bitter. Because he's married and has more kids etc. I do not care about any of that. I'm glad to be rid of him. What does piss me off is being used like a door mat, basically ripped off and shit on b/c of the financial mess he's dumped onto me. Omg - that poor woman can have him. Soon, she'll be put in the same boat I was only it will be even worse for her. He's already got her in a mountain of debt. I predict she will ultimately have to bankrupt and go live w/her parents, kids in tow.

 

[dav66]

No.

The payor knows they have a financial obligation to their existing children and this information should be used when determining to have a second family.

If the payor chooses to have another family, their obligation to their existing children should not diminish due to their choice. Having more kids or a second family is a choice. And ones responsibilities don't change because of bad decisions.

Think of it as buying a car. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

as most on a soapbox do, you have missed the point of my response. I did not 'have' another family, merely it is a blended family where all children are treated the same and as a family. that is all. I care for my children emotionally financially and physically [i put both roofs over their heads]. and i dont discriminate between between the families. My ex does

for example, when one of our 2 daughters moved in with me last june, suddenly spousal was an issue - because 'her' income dropped.

FRO is used as a weapon, not a tool to enforce obligations. that is the issue i am raising, but thanks for the economics lesson.

 

[dav66]

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.

 

[hadenough]

Dav66: no one was speculating on your particular set of circumstances. Rather it was the blanket way in which you made some of your statements. Just b/c your ex wife is (you allege) using FRO as a "weapon" - doesn't mean that that's what everybody does, or that that's its purpose. Some of us really do NEED their powers of persuasion. I shop mostly @Thrift stores, get a minimal amount of groceries, have had to get my son's school to help offset some of the school costs (field trips etc). It's been really tough. POINT BEING: there are many single parents who do rely on proper Child Support and some of us (I know I am) are, at the mercy of a totally irresponsible ass when it comes to the other parent. The F.R.O. IS my only hope of getting what is owed so that my son and I can have a decent life. Coiuld I get a better job? Possibly. And I should, very soon - but the bs of this, and another Court matter I have w/"dad" has been a full time, un-paid JOB. So good on you if you are responsible, but some fathers aren't. Period Amen.

 

[HammerDad]

i give up. no one here seems able to see beyond their own beef or soapbox.

It wasn't a soap box. I am a payor, I will be for many years. I don't use FRO as neither my ex and I want the hassles. I give her post dated cheques, normally 6 months at a time. This works well for us.

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.

I think you are mistaken for who is responsible for what here. You put the onus on your ex, when the responsibility is yours. When there is a material change in circumstance (like the child changing residences) it is up to the person affected to file a motion and have the courts order said change.

You made the unfortunate mistake of relying on your ex, who has absolutely ZERO motivation, to update or provide documentation to FRO. As you said, why would she be in a rush? She has free money coming in.

Once the child resided with you, you should have filed a motion in court updating the custody situation. This should be done because without a new order, you will never have the comfort of being the custodial parent in the courts eyes. Further, FRO can only enforce what is on the court order/agreement. If you're court order to pay, they will always deem you as the payor whether or not the kid lives with you. You need a new order showing you as the custodial parent to cause your ex to pay (unless she is willing to first consent to you being removed from FRO and then second willingly pays you.

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.

Not villifying you, and yes FRO is a one way street. It was designed that way to ensure payors couldn't easily get out of paying. You just made the common mistake of relying on your unmotivated ex to make the changes when you should have been all over it like a dirty shirt.

 

[hadenough]

Thanks HD for another very informative post. One way street, weapon, tool, or Agency - whatever it is - I cannot wait to have them involved as the alternative (relying on ex to do the right thing) is NOT an option. I'm grateful that there are consequences in place through FRO's enforcement. The message is clear at least - pay on time and follow the rules and there shouldn't be a problem. I applaud ex partners that are fair with one another w/regards to the kids, that don't have to go through the F.R.O.

 

[tiredofthisnow]

Tiredofthisnow: did you mean "lack of responsibility FOR his children?" I understand your anger. There are a few on here who have insinuated that I am bitter. Because he's married and has more kids etc. I do not care about any of that. I'm glad to be rid of him. What does piss me off is being used like a door mat, basically ripped off and shit on b/c of the financial mess he's dumped onto me. Omg - that poor woman can have him. Soon, she'll be put in the same boat I was only it will be even worse for her. He's already got her in a mountain of debt. I predict she will ultimately have to bankrupt and go live w/her parents, kids in tow.

Sorry hadenough, yes FOR is what i meant. I don't believe any (or most) of us are bitter because our exes got remarried, I could care less what he does with his new wife. They DO NOT have any children together, and he still will not pay child support even though it is court ordered and he is registered with FRO. It's hard for some exes to realize that they cannot just forget about the family they have when they decide to move on, be responsible, grow up and be an adult for the love of god. (laughing my ass off b/c I'm sure that won't happen with my ex) LOL

 

[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

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.