A mother’s desperate attempt to shield her daughter from a painful reminder of past trauma has been denied by the High Court, a decision that has ignited a fierce debate about the priorities within the family court system.
Detailed fact-finding proceedings revealed a harrowing pattern of abuse perpetrated by the father between 2015 and 2017. The court found four instances of “very serious” sexual abuse, including a rape that occurred despite the mother’s explicit desire to wait until marriage.
The abuse didn’t end there. Testimony revealed the father continued sexual activity even as the mother cried out in pain and repeatedly said “no.” His behavior extended beyond physical violation to include a campaign of threats and verbal abuse during the relationship’s breakdown.
In a particularly chilling incident in September 2021, the father threatened to kill the mother and her daughter, stating, “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].” Weeks later, he unleashed a torrent of abuse, leaving both mother and daughter living in fear.
Despite these findings, a family court recorder, Judge Laura Moy, ruled against changing the daughter’s surname, arguing it would “constitute a further rupture in the link she has to her father.” The judge maintained the child’s surname was “a part of her identity” and provided a vital connection to her paternal heritage.
The father, remarkably, refused to acknowledge the court’s findings, dismissing them as “allegations of sexual harassment.” He repeatedly used the term “marital rape” even after being instructed to refrain, demonstrating a disturbing disregard for the gravity of the situation.
The mother appealed, arguing the judge hadn’t adequately considered the emotional toll of her daughter being forced to carry her abuser’s name. However, Justice Peel upheld the original decision, stating Judge Moy had “clearly understood” the severity of the abuse and the mother’s trauma.
The appeals court did, however, overturn Judge Moy’s refusal to extend a non-molestation order. This reversal came in light of the father’s alleged breach of a previous order – currently subject to a criminal trial – and a separate police investigation into historical rape allegations. The injunction will now remain in place until 2027.
The father was ordered to contribute £5,000 towards the mother’s £13,000 legal costs. But the financial burden pales in comparison to the emotional weight of the decision.
Dr. Charlotte Proudman, the mother’s barrister, expressed deep concern, stating there is mounting evidence that family courts “systemically disadvantage victims of domestic abuse and place children at risk of further harm.”
She argued the ruling is profoundly out of step with modern understandings of abuse and trauma, and that forcing a child to retain the surname of her mother’s rapist is not only inconsistent with the impact of domestic abuse, but also disregards the profound emotional and psychological consequences for both the child and her mother.
Dr. Proudman went further, suggesting the state’s insistence on maintaining this connection is “arguably abusive,” and that such decisions are happening “everyday behind closed doors” within the family court system, shocking to those unaware of the realities within.
