Table of Contents
A five-year-old girl must retain her father's surname, despite him having raped and abused her mother, according to a ruling from the High Court.
A judge upheld a previous decision, stating that the surname is an essential aspect of the child's identity and heritage following an appeal.
The child, referred to as D, has not seen her father since December 2021 but is required to carry his surname despite his history of abuse against her mother.
The mother contested the earlier ruling, arguing that compelling the child to keep the name was re-traumatizing and not in the child’s best interests.
Representing the mother, barrister Charlotte Proudman stated, “This highlights that the rights of a rapist are prioritized over those of the victim.”
In 2023, the family court discovered four “very serious” incidents of sexual abuse against the mother occurring between 2015 and 2017.
These incidents included rape, despite the mother expressing her desire to wait until marriage.
The proceedings revealed that the abusive father continued intercourse even when the mother cried out in pain and said “no.”
Additionally, the court found that he was threatening and verbally abusive during the breakdown of their relationship.
One distressing incident in September 2021 had the father telling the mother: “There is no guarantee that if I come back here, I won’t get so stressed that I decide to pick up a knife, kill your parents first in their sleep, and then kill you and [D].”
Just weeks later, the father verbally assaulted the mother, leaving both her and child D in a state of fear, as reported in court.
Despite these circumstances, Judge Laura Moys, a family recorder, ruled in March that changing child 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.”
Judge Moys noted that the father continually denied established findings, referring to the incidents as “allegations of sexual harassment.”
He repeatedly used the term “marital rape,” even after being instructed to stop.
Ultimately, the appeals court denied permission to alter the surname decision.
However, they did allow part of the appeal concerning a protective order.
The father was ordered to pay £5,000 of the mother’s £13,000 in costs.
Proudman remarked, “This is abusive, state-sanctioned harm. Forcing a child to retain the father’s surname, the man who raped her mother, is abuse facilitated by the court.
“In what world would a child wish to have the name of a man who raped and abused her mother? How does this uphold important identity and connections? It’s truly harmful.
“This demonstrates that a rapist’s rights are valued more than those of the victim and the child's right to freedom.”
Judge Laura Moys previously stated that the child’s surname ‘is a part of her identity’Credit: IFLA.ORG
Frequently Asked Questions
Why must the child keep her father's surname?
The High Court ruled that the surname is a crucial part of the child's identity and heritage, despite the father's abusive history.
What arguments did the mother present in her appeal?
The mother argued that forcing the child to bear the father's name was re-traumatizing and not in the child's best interests.
What were the findings of the court regarding the father's behavior?
The court found multiple serious incidents of sexual abuse and threatening behavior by the father towards the mother.
