URGENT UPDATE: London’s High Court has just ruled that a six-year-old girl, known as ‘D’, must retain her rapist father’s surname, sparking outrage among women’s rights advocates and legal experts. The decision, confirmed on November 18, 2025, forces D to carry the name of a man who has been deemed dangerous and has had no contact with her for nearly four years.
This shocking ruling was made by Mr Justice Peel, who stated that the surname is a “key part” of D’s identity and a vital “link with her father.” This comes despite overwhelming evidence that the father, referred to as ‘F’, has a history of severe abuse against D’s mother, ‘M’, including rape and threats to kill.
The court’s decision has ignited a firestorm of criticism. Family law barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman, who represented M, condemned the ruling as “extraordinary,” arguing it prioritizes the father’s identity over the safety and wellbeing of the child. “The court insists that she carry his name, as if this heritage must be preserved,” Proudman stated. “This is deeply concerning.”
“A child should be protected from a rapist, not forced to be named after him,” Dr Proudman emphasized.
During the preceding family court trial, the court revealed that F had committed multiple acts of sexual abuse and verbal threats against M. In one harrowing incident, he threatened M with a knife, stating he could kill her and their child in a fit of rage. Following these events, M sought a non-molestation order in January 2022, which legally barred F from contacting her.
Despite these circumstances, the High Court ruled against M’s plea to change D’s surname, arguing that it would disrupt the “link” to her father. Critics argue this highlights a troubling trend within family courts that often favors paternal connections even in cases involving abuse.
In March 2025, M applied to change D’s surname, asserting that it was not in her child’s best interest to bear the name of a man who has caused them both significant harm. M’s legal team argued that the ruling could lead to stigma as D matures and learns about her father’s actions.
“Imagine being 13 or 14,” Proudman said, “and discovering that your father raped your mother – and that the court forced you to keep his surname against her wishes. For that child, this name becomes a daily reminder of violence.”
Despite the compelling arguments presented, including support from D’s assigned social worker, the court maintained its position. Judge Laura Moys stated that removing the father’s surname would “constitute a further rupture” in D’s identity, a claim that has been met with fierce backlash from domestic abuse advocates.
With the ruling upheld, M now faces the grim reality that her daughter will carry the name of her abuser. “She is devastated,” Proudman remarked. “It’s a punch in the stomach. She genuinely believed the law would protect her daughter from this ongoing symbolic connection to her abuser.”
M’s former husband is currently under criminal investigation for historical rape allegations, adding further complexity to this already distressing case. Having been denied permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, M’s last option may be to pursue a hearing at the European Court of Human Rights, a lengthy and costly process that few family court cases undergo.
The High Court’s ruling has raised alarm about the ongoing culture within family courts that minimizes the risks posed by abusive parents. Andrea Simon, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, called for urgent reforms, stating, “This judgment highlights the urgent need to change the culture of the family courts.”
As the situation develops, the question remains: will justice prevail for D and her mother, or will the legal system continue to fail victims of domestic violence?
