Court rules girl, 5, must keep surname of dad who raped her mum

A five-year-old girl must keep the surname of her father who raped her mother, a High Court judge has ruled.

Mr Justice Peel said the dad’s name forms a key part of the child’s identity and heritage, as he upheld the decision at an appeal.

This comes despite the father carrying out several incidents of domestic abuse against the mum, including rape and threats.

The child, referred to as D, has not seen him since December 2021.

‘It just shows that a rapist’s rights are more important than [the] victim’s,’the mother’s barrister, Charlotte Proudman, told The Times, who reported on the case.

The family court’s fact-finding proceedings found the father had committed four ‘very serious’ incidents of sexual abuse against the mother between 2015 and 2017.

This included rape, ‘despite her saying she wanted to wait’ until marriage.

The father refused to stop intercourse when the mother cried in pain and said ‘no’, the proceedings said.

It also found he was threatening and verbally abusive during the breakdown of the relationship.

During one argument in September 2021, the father told the mother: ‘There is no guarantee that if I come back here that I will not get so stressed out that I decide to pick up the knife, kill your parents first in their sleep and then kill you and [D].’

The court heard that some weeks later he swore at her, leaving her and her daughter living in fear.

However, in March this year, family recorder Judge Laura Moy ruled that changing D’s surname would ‘constitute a further rupture in the link she has to her father in a way that is not justified or proportionate’.

She said that the child’s surname is ‘a part of her identity and provides an important connection to her father and paternal heritage’.

This comes despite Judge Moys finding that the father refused to admit the findings, describing them as ‘allegations of sexual harassment’.

He also said it was troubling to hear him repeatedly used the phrase, ‘marital rape’ in court, despite being told to stop.

The mother appealed Judge Moys decision, and argued she had failed to give significant weight to the impact of her daughter having to keep her father’s name.

However, during the appeal Justice Peel said Judge Moys ‘had understood ‘clearly records’ the seriousness of the abuse and mother’s trauma before making her decision.

The appeals court ruled it would not challenge Judge Moys’ decision, finding ‘no real prospect of success’.

Mr Justice Peel did however overturn Judge Moys’ fusal to extend a non-molestation order, citing the father’s alleged breach, now awaiting a criminal trial, and a police investigation into historical rapes. The injunction will continue until 2027.

The father was ordered to pay £5,000 of the mother’s £13,000 costs.

Speaking to Metro, Dr Proudman said there is now substantial evidence that the family courts continue to operate in ways that ‘systemically disadvantage victims of domestic abuse and place children at risk of further harm’.

‘This judgment illustrates how far family courts remain out of step with modern understandings of abuse, and trauma,’ she said.

‘To require a child to retain the surname of a man who raped her mother is not only inconsistent with the impact of domestic abuse, but also disregards the profound emotional and psychological consequences for the child and her mother.’

She said the state’s insistence on a child retaining a rapist’s surname is ‘arguably abusive’.

‘Most people in society would be shocked by this decision and rightly so. But this is happening everyday behind closed doors in family courts,’ she added.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.