You are here

Question regarding CS

stormabruin's picture

Submitted by stormabruin on Fri, 02/01/2013 - 8:12am

DH & BM went back to court (again) earlier in the month. The paperwork states that the new order is effective Feb 1.

Does that mean that the payment he owes ON Feb 1st (today) is for the new amount, or does that mean that the payment he will make to COVER Feb 1st (his payment next week) will be for the new amount?

Comments

stormabruin's picture

Submitted by stormabruin on Fri, 02/01/2013 - 8:22am

That's how we took it. BM left DH 2 messages on DH's phone this morning demanding he have his payment to her "on time & in full" because the kids have a party to go to.

1) I'm not sure what she means by "on time & in full" because he always pays both on time & in full. She gets it whenever the mailman delivers it to her fucking house.

2) SS is an adult. Support is only paid on SD now.

3) I wish she'd take DH before a judge to bitch because DH didn't pay her in time for her to use her support for SD & SS to go to a party.

My guess is she's demanding the new increased amount to be sitting pretty in her hand by day's end. I just wanted to be sure DH & I were interpreting the order correctly.

stormabruin's picture

Submitted by stormabruin on Fri, 02/01/2013 - 8:39am

DH called the courthouse. He said the girl seemed like she wasn't really sure, but she told him to pay the lower amount to cover the entire month of January & start paying the higher amount next time.

He got her name so that if the judge ever implies that he should've done it differently he can give the judge the name of the girl who misinformed him.

It's a difference of $22/week. It wouldn't be a big deal to pay the $22 this week, but she opened the day being a shit-head.

Really, if anything's said, DH can pull $22 out of his pocket & throw it at her & he'll be caught up. LOL!

I'm really trying to see this through mature grown-up eyes & do the right thing. I just have a problem with letting her think she can make demands & DH will just fold.

misSTEP's picture

Submitted by misSTEP on Fri, 02/01/2013 - 8:47am

I understand that you are just being flip about it, but PLEASE don't let him throw $22 at her without some kind of paper trail. There are SOOO many people who give "CS" to the CP just to find out that the court considers it a gift or something.

stormabruin's picture

Submitted by stormabruin on Fri, 02/01/2013 - 8:51am

I just meant if she wanted to argue it in court, it's $22. If the judge puts him $22 in arrears because he misinterpreted the CO, it's not a big issue. He'd be in arrears one minute & out the next.

But I know what you mean. We've been there & learned that lesson too.

lac925's picture

Submitted by lac925 on Fri, 02/01/2013 - 1:33pm

BM gets her CS through FRO (Family Responsibility Office in Canada). He used to hand her her cheques, but then she started abusing that by saying she wanted her cheques early and whatnot. So when he couldn't do that, she got FRO to get her cheques from him. It takes a few weeks, I think, for the money to go through them and then to her. She didn't like that, so she went back to getting her cheques by hand...THEN, she got mad for some reason and got FRO on it again! SMH

She's so fucking ridiculous, thinking that the whole organization works solely for her. I told DH that they should have a policy that if customers abuse their services (ie. for revenge purposes, using them only when it suits them), then they are banned from ever using their services again, which means "you'll get your cheque when you get it!". FRO is meant to help single mothers ensure that they get their CS - they've suspended licences for non-payment (which happened to my brother-in-law). So, depending on which side of the fence you're on, it could be a good thing or a bad thing :S