Girl, 5, forced by High Court judge to keep surname of father who raped her mother

The mother argued her daughter having the surname of the father, who raped and threatened her, was re-traumatising.

She also argued that it was against the best interests of D, The Times reports.

The girl has not seen her father in person since December 2021.

The mother's barrister, Charlotte Proudman, said it showed "a rapist's rights are more important than (the) victim's".

Family court proceedings in 2023 found four "very serious" incidents of sexual abuse against the mother between 2015 and 2017, including rape, despite "her saying she wanted to wait" until marriage.

During legal proceedings, it was revealed the father refused to stop intercourse when the mother cried in pain and said "no".

During the breakdown of the relationship, the proceedings also found the man was threatening and verbally abusive.

The court heard that during an argument in September 2021, the father 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)".

It was heard that weeks later the father swore at the mother.

The court said the behaviour left the mother and daughter living "in fear".

Judge Laura Moys ruled in March that changing D's surname would be a "further rupture in the link she has to her father in a way that is not justified or proportionate".

She said the child's surname "is a part of her identity" and provided an important connection to her father and paternal heritage.

Both judges acknowledged the father's lack of insight.

Judge Moys found he continued to deny the findings, referring to them as "allegations".

Despite being asked to stop, the father used the phrase "marital rape" in court.

The judge said the comment was "troubling".

On appeal, the mother argued that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the impact of the use of the father's surname.

Mr Justice Peel said the judge "clearly records" the seriousness of the abuse and trauma.

The appeal court refused to allow a challenge to the surname decision, saying there was "no real prospect of success". However, it did allow part of the appeal which related to a protective order.

Mr Justice Peel overturned Judge Moys's refusal to extend a non-molestation order, citing the father's alleged breach which is now awaiting a criminal trial.

The father was ordered to pay £5,000 of the mother's £13,000 costs.

Ms Proudman said it was "state-sanctioned harm" to force a child to "bear or to continue to retain the father's surname, the man who raped her mother".

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter