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 use her rapist father’s surname after a High Court judge found that the surname was an important part of the child’s identity and heritage.
Mr Justice Peel made the decision in an appeal involving a child referred to in court as D, despite a history of serious domestic abuse.
D’s mother argued that her daughter’s association with a rapist re-traumatized her.
The child has not seen his father face to face since December 2021, who was found to have committed four ‘very serious’ sexual abuse incidents, including the rape of his mother, between 2015 and 2017.
The court heard that although the father “said he wanted to wait” until marriage, the father refused to stop the sexual intercourse after the mother cried in pain and said “no”.
He was also threatening and verbally abusive during the breakdown of the relationship.
During an argument in September 2021, the court heard the father told the mother: ‘If I come back here, there’s no guarantee I won’t get so stressed that I decide to take the knife and kill your mother and father in their sleep first, and then kill you. [D].’
Weeks later he was said to have sworn at his mother, leaving her and D ‘in fear’.
Mr Justice Peel (pictured) made the decision for young boy D despite his history of serious domestic violence towards his mother
Judge Laura Moys (pictured) found the child’s surname ‘forms part of his identity and provides an important link to his father and his paternal heritage’
Despite the findings, Judge Laura Moys, the family registrar, ruled in March that changing D’s surname would ‘create a further rupture in his connection with his father that is not justified or proportionate’.
The judge found that the child’s surname ‘forms part of his identity and provides an important link to his father and his paternal heritage’.
Charlotte Proudman, a lawyer representing the mother, told The Sunday Times that the verdict showed “the rights of a rapist are more important than the rapists themselves”. [the] of the victim.
Both Judge Moys and Mr Justice Peel criticized the father’s lack of understanding of the allegations.
It emerged that the father constantly referred to them as “allegations of sexual abuse” and repeatedly used the phrase “marital rape” in court, despite being asked to stop.
On appeal, the mother argued that Judge Moys did not adequately consider the impact of the father’s continued use of his surname.
But Mr Justice Peel said the judge had ‘clearly’ noted the seriousness of the abuse before reaching a conclusion.
The appeal against the surname decision was rejected by the appeals court on the grounds that there was ‘no real chance of success’.
However, part of the appeal regarding the protection order was allowed.
Mr Justice Peel overturned Judge Moy’s refusal to extend the non-harassment order.
He cited the father’s alleged violation, the current pending criminal trial, and the police investigation into historical rapes.
The precautionary decision is planned to continue until 2027.
The father was ordered to pay £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 carry or continue the surname of the father of the man who raped his mother. This is court-facilitated abuse.
‘In what world does a child want to bear the name of a man who raped and abused his mother? How does this preserve important identity and connections? It’s really harmful.
‘This just shows that the rapist’s rights are more important’ [the] victim and a child’s right to freedom.’
