Woman accuses family courts of ‘state-sanctioned abuse’ after six-year-old daughter was ordered to keep the surname of father who raped her mother

A mother has accused the High Court of state-sanctioned harassment after her six-year-old daughter was ordered to use her rapist father’s surname.

The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said she ‘had a complete nervous breakdown’ when the judge upheld the verdict despite a history of serious assault.

The family court, whose name was referred to as D in court, ruled in March that changing the girl’s surname would “create a rupture in her bond with her father that is not justified or proportionate.”

Judge Laura Moys said D’s name ‘forms part of his identity and provides an important link to his father and his paternal heritage’.

And this week the High Court Judge, Mr Justice Peel, upheld the decision, following an appeal, on the grounds that it had ‘no real prospect of success’.

This was despite the child not having seen her father face-to-face since December 2021, who was found to have carried out four ‘very serious’ incidents of sexual abuse against her mother, including rape, between 2015 and 2017.

Speaking after Mr Justice Peel’s decision, D’s mother said: Times: ‘I thought that was the obvious thing for the courts; It was unacceptable for a rapist to mention my daughter’s name and that was the only thing they refused. ‘It was as if the ground was being pulled away from your feet and you were drowning in a black hole.’

He said he plans to complete the case with an application to the European Court of Human Rights, supported by the Good Law Project, for crowdfunding purposes.

At the hearing in March, Judge Laura Moys wrote in her ruling that removing the name would ‘create a further rupture in her connection with her father that is not justified or proportionate’.

‘The surname is an integral part of a person’s identity. “I don’t want my daughter to be identified with a rapist,” she concluded.

D’s mother was born abroad before moving to England. She said she grew up in a loving home and never expected that British courts would insist she keep her abuser’s name, saying ‘we are not in a third world country’.

The court was told that the mother, known as ‘M’, and the father, known as ‘F’, were educated professionals who had been in an arranged marriage. Their first ceremony took place in India in January 2016, followed by a civil ceremony in the United Kingdom.

The couple initially lived with M’s parents in Britain and soon bought a house of their own. Their daughter was born in September 2019, and in early 2021 the couple temporarily moved into M’s parents’ house while renovations continued.

During this period, relations rapidly deteriorated and F initiated divorce proceedings in December 2021. What followed was a spiraling series of allegations, court hearings, and protective orders.

By January 2022, M had and was granted a non-harassment order preventing her estranged husband from contacting or approaching her. Another order was placed in June 2023, which continues to this day.

The court heard that although D said he wanted to ‘wait’ until marriage, the father refused to stop the relationship when D’s mother cried in pain and said ‘no’.

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

Lawyer Charlotte Proudman (pictured), representing the mother, said the verdict ‘shows that the rights of a rapist are more important than the rapists themselves’. [the] the victim

During an argument in September 2021, the father told D’s mother: ‘There’s no guarantee that when I come back here, I won’t be so stressed that I decide to pick up a knife and kill your parents in their sleep, and then kill you. [D].’

Weeks later he was said to have sworn at his mother, leaving her and D ‘in fear’.

D’s mother described the court process as ‘extremely traumatic’ and said that she was ‘very afraid of being in the same room’, especially since her ex-husband was representing her.

She described the horror of watching him tap his fingers on a table behind a screen.

D’s mother questioned why the judge “inflicted such a trauma on a little girl” and claimed that the decision was “biased” against her ex-husband.

She said she had “no doubt” the father was happy for his daughter to still carry his name, describing it as “his way of exerting insane control over her and my life.”

D’s mother said that she had not yet discussed her surname in detail with her daughter, but the little girl could already sense that there was “something different” about her name.

He claimed family courts were dominated by a ‘pro-contact culture’ which insisted that the presence of two parents would ensure a better outcome for the child; but argued that the evidence was ‘old’ and ‘the world has progressed’.

‘It’s like state-sanctioned harassment,’ he said.

Charlotte Proudman, the lawyer representing the mother, said the verdict ‘shows that a rapist’s rights are more important than his rights’. [the] of the victim.

Both Judge Moys and Mr Justice Peel criticized the father’s lack of understanding of the allegations, as he repeatedly described them as “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.

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 said: ‘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.’

He later said the courts’ approach dated back to the ‘dark ages’ and added that he was concerned the judge would correct him by calling the man a ‘sexual predator’, given his history of raping his mother.

Ms Proudman said the decision was ‘stigmatising and damaging’ and ‘shows how far the family courts still have to go’.