Mr Justice Peel upheld an earlier decision stating that the child, referred to as D, should retain her father’s surname despite the father’s history of severe domestic abuse and sexual violence against the mother.
The mother argued that her daughter remaining connected to the name of a man who raped and threatened her was traumatising and not in the child’s best interests. D has not had face to face contact with her father since December 2021.
Charlotte Proudman, the mother’s barrister, criticised the decision, saying it demonstrated that the rights of a rapist were being prioritised above the rights of victims.
In 2023 the family court found four serious incidents of sexual abuse against the mother between 2015 and 2017. These included rape, refusal to stop intercourse after the mother cried in pain and said no, and repeated verbal abuse throughout the breakdown of the relationship.
During one confrontation in September 2021, the father told the mother that he could return to the home and become so stressed that he might pick up a knife, kill her parents in their sleep, and then kill her and D. Weeks later he subjected the mother to further verbal abuse, leaving both her and the child in fear.
Despite these findings, Judge Laura Moys ruled in March that removing the surname would cause an unjustified rupture in the child’s connection to her paternal heritage.
Judge Moys and Mr Justice Peel both criticised the father’s lack of insight. He continues to deny the findings, describing them as allegations of sexual harassment, and repeatedly used the phrase marital rape in court even after being warned to stop.
The mother appealed, arguing that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the harm caused by the continued use of the surname. The High Court rejected the argument, finding no realistic prospect of overturning the decision.
However, the court allowed part of the appeal concerning a protective order. Mr Justice Peel overturned Judge Moys’s decision to end a non molestation order, citing the father’s alleged breach which is awaiting a criminal trial and a police investigation into historical rapes. The injunction will now remain in place until 2027.
The father has been ordered to pay five thousand pounds towards the mother’s thirteen thousand pounds in legal costs.
Speaking after the ruling, Proudman described the decision as a form of state sanctioned harm. She argued that forcing a child to keep the surname of the man who raped her mother was profoundly damaging and failed to protect the rights and wellbeing of both mother and child.
