Rights for violent fathers

[Puppy72]

Hi all. A bit of advice needed.. Is it true in that if a father who has no contact with his child but financially supports via CMS has grounds for contact even if he is deemed violent, abusive to child, risk to child and deemed mentally unstable by social services? Currently going through the motions with CMS for a deduction of earnings order for my exP who is all of the things listed above.. Just wondering if I accept the maintenance for our daughter then it's giving him a leg up for contact?.. I do not want him to have contact and was told by SS that he shouldn't be around my daughter and to cut contact.. I do not want to take the maintenance if it gives him a leg up. I support my daughter financially and she never goes without ever.. We don't necessarily need his money but if I was to receive it it would make life a little easier but as I say I can do without it because I provide everything for my daughter. Any advice would be welcome.

Maintenance and contact are separate issues. He will not get contact just because he pays maintenance. The courts are only concerned with your daughter's best interests.

Thank you

OP, @prh47bridge was the poster I thought may be able to help with your non-mol question. Severely abuse ex wants contact with DD. Non-mol starting no contact with op or dd, 100m exclusion, no 3rd party contact. Ex’s solicitor is pressing for contact. OP’s sol has suggested FaceTime call for dd’s birthday and that she has to appear like she’s not blocking contact. Don’t think there are any other orders in place. Ordinarily, would op have to facilitate contact or would she not be breach of the order? Apologies for butting in, but thought op needed a bit of reassurance. Thanks.

Thank you @ Lolapusht xxx

The non-molestation order is, presumably, against the OP's ex. If that is the case, it prohibits him from doing certain things. It does not prohibit the OP from doing those things. So, for example, it may prohibit him from contacting the OP. It doesn't prohibit the OP from contacting him so she would not be in breach.

Sorry - editing gone wrong. That last sentence was meant to say, "It doesn't prohibit the OP from contacting him so she would not be in breach if, say, she rang him."

Thank you @prh47bridge but would it not be actively encouraging him to breach it if I was to have direct contact with him

That would still not be a breach by you. At best it might be a defence if he is prosecuted for a breach. However, as long as you are clear that he is not to contact you there shouldn't be any problems.

I think I should avoid encouraging any kind of contact, direct or indirect. I definitely won't agree to a facetime and if he does send a letter or birthday card to the address he has, he knows I will be there at some point to collect so I am putting myself in danger...