Court Rules Against Mother in Surname Battle
A five-year-old girl has been ordered by the High Court to keep the surname of her father, who was found to have repeatedly raped and abused her mother. Mr Justice Peel upheld the controversial ruling during an appeal case concerning the toddler, known only as D, despite acknowledging the father's history of serious domestic abuse.
History of Abuse and Threats Revealed
The court heard disturbing details of the abuse inflicted upon D's mother between 2015 and 2017. The father committed four 'very serious' incidents of sexual abuse, including rape, despite the mother's clear protests. '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 abuse continued during the relationship's breakdown, with the father becoming threatening and verbally abusive. In one particularly chilling incident in September 2021, he told the mother: 'There is no guarantee that I will not pick up the knife, kill your parents first in their sleep and then kill you and [D].' This left both mother and daughter living in fear, with the father continuing to swear at the mother weeks later.
Judges Prioritise 'Identity and Heritage'
Despite these findings, Judge Laura Moys 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'. She determined the child's surname 'is a part of her identity and provides an important connection to her father and paternal heritage'.
Mr Justice Peel later supported this decision during the mother's appeal, stating Judge Moys had 'clearly' recorded the seriousness of the abuse before reaching her conclusion. The appeal court refused the challenge to the surname decision, finding 'no real prospect of success'.
Barrister Charlotte Proudman, representing the mother, strongly criticised the ruling, telling The Sunday Times it showed 'a rapist's rights are more important than the victim's'. She elaborated: '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.'
The father demonstrated a concerning lack of understanding throughout proceedings, continually referring to the allegations as 'allegations of sexual harassment' and repeatedly using the phrase 'marital rape' despite being asked to stop by the court.
In a partial victory for the mother, Mr Justice Peel did overturn Judge Moy's refusal to extend a non-molestation order. Citing the father's alleged breach - currently awaiting criminal trial - and a police investigation into historical rapes, the injunction will now continue until 2027. The father was also ordered to pay £5,000 of the mother's £13,000 legal costs.
