Forced to keep rapist's name.Who can do links for Times on line?

[logiccalls]

A six year old girl is ordered by court to use the name of her abusive, violent, multiple rapist father. Judge told the man not to keep saying it was "marital" rape, but agreed he was not a sexual predator. Another case set a precedent by making the opposite decision, ruling that it is not in the interests of a rapist's child, to be forced to keep his name. So sorry, cannot do links but it seemed like something this page would normally include.

This isn't the Times, but other papers have covered it.
https://metro.co.uk/2025/11/17/court-rules-girl-5-must-keep-surname-dad-raped-mum-24729628/

Seems like the Good Law Project helped the legal challenge.

Maybe its explained in another article but why do you have to go to court to change your name.

Is this one of those Family Court decisions that has led to so many criticism eg children being forced to visit a violent father?

‘Making my daughter keep name of my rapist is state-sanctioned abuse’

www.thetimes.com/article/61b2c14b-8bc1-46c3-8538-a2701f84298a?shareToken=04204209837cbb9c57493f61972c681d

Mr Justice Peel said the dad’s name forms a key part of the child’s identity and heritage, as he upheld the decision at an appeal.

is that an ‘identity’ she wants or needs? Does the mother’s name carry no identity and heritage?
what a bizzarely horrible decision .

itd be great if they really did start doing truly Good law again - and winning.

Thank you for the responses. Good Law project seems to have made a horrible mess of defending women and girls.

What on earth was the High Court doing in pre emptively refusing an appeal?

Why on earth was the nearly identical case not cited as precedent? (I'm assuming it wasn't, because how could the exact opposite ruling be made, without any mention of any extraordinary reason why one, male, child would have a blighted life, from association with the name of his absent, violent. rapist father, yet this, female, child would mysteriously benefit from being forced to use the name of hers, in identical circumstances?) Was Good Law acting in good faith?

Women and children everywhere are the property of men.... according to the worst men, and the worst judges.

There again, some male judges claim to be able to change sex. And some asylum judges are... surprising.

As a matter of pure speculation, I'm guessing the father was born abroad as well, the term 'Marital Rape' is not often used in the UK but the are many culture's that use it as an excuse for husbands who rape their wives.

Plus the Judge thinks the father's name is part of the child's 'heritage', so perhaps another case of a 'Activist' Judge putting the norms of another culture before the interests of a child and the values of our culture. 😒

You cannot change the name of someone under 16 without the consent of everyone with parental responsibility - or a court order.

https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll/change-a-childs-name

While I am generally against parents being allowed to change children’s names at all, this is one of the exceptions.

if a parent is convicted of a serious crime, the other parent should have the right to change the child’s name to help obfuscate the child’s identity and the courts should not entertain objections from the criminal parent. It should be an automatic right that the name change just gets rubber-stamped upon request. Not all children or parents will want the option, but it should be easily available.

Mr Justice Peel did however overturn Judge Moys’ fusal to extend a non-molestation order, citing the father’s alleged breach, now awaiting a criminal trial, and a police investigation into historical rapes. The injunction will continue until 2027.

The original judge wouldn't even extend the non-mol?!

The judge specifically used the term "paternal heritage". It's not about any other culture, it's about the connection to the father and the British cultural tradition of a father's surname being passed down the generations. So they have decided that the child should retain this link to her rapist father specifically, based on British cultural norms.

Similarly, it sounds like the rapist was using the term "marital rape" as an attempt to minimise and manipulate. Court hearings are a performance. (I am also not sure that it is such an uncommon term in the UK outside of feminist circles.)

I think these two extracts are quite telling (I have added emphasis):

She married the man and took his surname. Their daughter was given his name at birth. During the marriage, a judge later found, he raped her and refused to stop intercourse when she cried with pain and said “no”. During the relationship’s breakdown, he threatened to kill her and her parents.

The mother said that having those events formally recognised in court had initially brought “relief”. “It’s like everything you’re trying to let out is suddenly now a proven thing,” she said. “For the court to recognise that he was a perpetrator is a huge relief.”

...

Charlotte Proudman, the barrister who represented the mother in court, said: “The judge’s approach to sexual violence and domestic abuse is rooted in the dark ages.

“What is especially worrying is that when I referred to the father as a ‘sexual predator’ — a man who raped the mother four times — the judge immediately came to his defence and insisted he was ‘categorically not’ a sexual predator. If a man who has violated a woman sexually on four separate occasions does not meet that description, then who does?

I do not think that judge is fit for the role.

Really very worrying and illuminating to see misogyny so blatantly in the judiciary. I’ve known far too many women suffer at the hands of similar judges.

That is sad, i do not think its god to be reminded of the bad issue everyday. It might be possible to fight the case again and again until they change the name.

The poor mother can’t legally change the name, but she sure as hell can use another surname (hers) for the child. The rapist father’s surname will still be the legal surname but the mother’s surname can be the ‘known as’. Then, as soon as the DD reaches 16, she can officially change her surname herself.

I’ve met a number of children who go by their mother’s surname but have a different legal surname (their father’s). This legal surname only needs to be put on a small number of forms and the ‘known as’ surname can be used elsewhere.

This is a disgusting judgement and I hope it’s reversed somehow.