Girl, five, must keep the surname of the man who raped her mother to avoid ‘rupturing’ link to her father, High Court judge rules

A five-year-old girl has been ordered to keep the surname of her rapist father after a High Court judge found it formed a key part of the child’s identity and heritage.

Mr Justice Peel made the ruling at an appeal in relation to a child, referred to in court as D, despite the history of serious domestic abuse.

D’s mother argued that her daughter being tied to the name of a rapist was retraumatising.

The child has not seen her father – who was found to have committed four ‘very serious’ incidents of sexual abuse against the mother between 2015 and 2017, including rape – face-to-face since December 2021.

‘Despite her saying she wanted to wait’ until marriage, the court heard the father had refused to stop intercourse when the mother cried in pain and said ‘no’.

He was also threatening and verbally abusive during the breakdown of the relationship.

During one argument in September 2021, the court heard the father had 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].’

He was said to have left her and D living ‘in fear’, swearing at the mother weeks later.

Despite the findings, Judge Laura Moys, a family recorder, ruled in March 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’.

The judge found the child’s surname ‘is a part of her identity and provides an important connection to her father and paternal heritage’.

Charlotte Proudman, the barrister representing the mother, told The Sunday Times the ruling showed ‘a rapist’s rights are more important than [the] victim’s’.

Both Judge Moys and Mr Justice Peel criticised the father’s lack of understanding around the allegations.

It comes as the father had continually referred to them as ‘allegations of sexual harassment’ and repeatedly used the phrase ‘marital rape’ in court, despite being asked to stop.

On appeal, the mother argued Judge Moys had failed to sufficiently consider the impact of continued use of the father’s surname.

But Mr Justice Peel said the judge had ‘clearly’ recorded the seriousness of abuse before reaching a conclusion.

A challenge to the surname decision was refused by the appeal court, as it found ‘no real prospect of success’.

One part of the appeal was allowed, however, relating to a protective order.

Mr Justice Peel overturned Judge Moy’s refusal to extend a non-molestation order.

He cited the father’s alleged breach, currently awaiting a criminal trial, and a police investigation into historical rapes.

The injunction is set to continue until 2027.

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

Ms Proudman told the Sunday Times: ‘This is abusive, state-sanctioned harm. You are forcing a child to bear or to continue to retain the father’s surname, the man who raped her mother. That is abuse facilitated by the court.

‘In what world would a child want to have the name of a man who raped and abused the mother? How is that upholding important identity and links? It’s really harmful. 

‘It just shows that a rapist’s rights are more important than [the] victim and a child’s right to freedom.’