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 abuse after her six-year-old daughter was ordered to keep the surname of her rapist father.

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

Referred to in court as D, the family court had found in March that changing the girl’s surname would ‘constitute a rupture in the link she has to her father in a way that is not justified or proportionate’.

Judge Laura Moys said D’s name ‘is a part of her identity and provides an important connection to her father and paternal heritage’.

And this week High Court Judge Mr Justice Peel upheld the decision following an appeal as it found ‘no real prospect of success’.

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

Speaking after Mr Justice Peel’s verdict, D’s mother told the Telegraph: ‘That was the one thing I thought was so obvious for these courts – that it cannot be acceptable for a rapist to be attached to my daughter’s name – and that’s the one thing they refused. It was like the floor’s being removed from your feet and you’re drowning into a black hole.’

She said she planned on following through with an application to the European Court of Human Rights, supported by the Good Law Project, with the intention of crowdfunding the case.

This week High Court Judge Mr Justice Peel (pictured) upheld the decision following an appeal as it found ‘no real prospect of success’ 

At a hearing in March, Judge Laura Moys wrote in her judgment that removing the name would ‘constitute a further rupture in the link she has to her father in a way that is not justified or proportionate’

‘A surname is integral to someone’s identity. I do not want my daughter to be identified with a rapist,’ she concluded.

D’s mother was born in abroad before moving to the UK. She said she had grown up in a loving home and never expected the English courts would insist she keep the name of an abuser, saying ‘we’re not in a third-world country’.

The court was told the mother, known as ‘M’, and father ‘F’ were both educated professionals whose marriage was arranged. Their first ceremony took place in India in January 2016, with a later civil ceremony in the UK.

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

Relations rapidly soured during that period, and in December 2021, F initiated divorce proceedings. What followed was a spiralling series of allegations, court hearings and protective orders.

By January 2022, M sought and was granted a non-molestation order – preventing her estranged husband from contacting or approaching her. A further order was granted in June 2023, which persists to this day.

The court heard that despite her saying she wanted to ‘wait’ until marriage, the father had refused to stop intercourse when D’s mother cried in pain and said ‘no’.

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

Charlotte Proudman (pictured), the barrister representing the mother, said the ruling showed ‘a rapist’s rights are more important than [the] victim’s’

During one argument in September 2021, the father had told D’s 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].’

He was said to have left her and D living ‘in fear’, swearing at the mother weeks later.

D’s mother described the courts process as ‘hugely traumatic’, in particular because her former husband had represented himself, saying she was ‘so petrified to be in the same room’.

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

D’s mother questioned why the judge would ‘put a little girl through that trauma’, suggesting the decision was ‘biased’ towards her ex-husband.

She said she had ‘no doubt’ the father was pleased their daughter still bore his name and described it as ‘his way to have some sort of crazy control over her and my life’.

D’s mother said she was yet to discuss the surname in detail with her daughter but that the little girl could already sense there is ‘something different’ about her name.

She claimed the family courts are dominated by a ‘pro-contact culture’ that insists having two parents present provides a better outcome for the child – but argued the evidence is ‘old’ and ‘the world has moved on’.

‘It’s like state-sanctioned abuse,’ she said.

Charlotte Proudman, the barrister representing the mother, had said the ruling showed ‘a rapist’s rights are more important than [the] victim’s’.

Both Judge Moys and Mr Justice Peel criticised the father’s lack of understanding around the allegations as he had continually referred to them as being of ‘sexual harassment’ and repeatedly used the phrase ‘marital rape’ in court, despite being asked to stop.

On appeal, the mother argued Judge Moys had failed to sufficiently consider the impact of continued use of the father’s surname.

But Mr Justice Peel said the judge had ‘clearly’ recorded the seriousness of abuse before reaching a conclusion.

One part of the appeal was allowed, however, relating to a protective order.

Mr Justice Peel overturned Judge Moy’s refusal to extend a non-molestation order.

He cited the father’s alleged breach, currently awaiting a criminal trial, and a police investigation into historical rapes.

The injunction is set 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 bear or to continue to retain the father’s surname, the man who raped her mother. That is abuse facilitated by the court.’

She later said the courts’ approach had been rooted in ‘the dark ages’, adding it was worrying a judge had corrected her when she referred the the man as a ‘sexual predator’ given his history of raping the mother.

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