Charlotte Proudman: No child should ever be bound to a man who raped her mother

Content warning: sexual assault

A few weeks ago, the High Court ruled that a six-year-old girl, known legally as D, must keep her father’s surname – the name of the man who raped her mother. Despite his violence, despite his threats to kill them both, despite the fact he has not seen his daughter in person since 2021, the court insisted his name is part of her identity and heritage.

Through this ruling, the state – because the court is an arm of the state – is saying it prioritises this child’s paternal heritage, and her link to the man who raped her mother, over the express wishes of her primary carer.

The mother has raised this little girl since birth. The father has caused her significant harm and poses a continuing risk.

The consequences of this ruling go far beyond one family. They expose a deeper problem in our family courts – a system still too ready to protect a violent father’s symbolic status, even when it poses emotional harm to a child. Names matter. They shape identity, belonging and self-understanding. Tying a child to the man who raped her mother sends a message about whose rights the court values, and whose trauma it chooses to overlook.

Imagine growing up, aware of what happened and discovering that the court forced you to keep the name of someone who inflicted such heinous abuse. For that child, this name becomes a daily reminder of violence and harm.

No child should be bound to the name of the man who raped her mother.

Families are important, so there’s always been a presumption in family courts that parents should be involved in their children’s care. But when the parents are the problem, this presumption can lock children into a lifetime of harm. My organisation, Right to Equality, campaigned with many other organisations to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. In October, the government committed to put the wellbeing of children first and to repeal this presumption. So this judgment is not only wildly out of step with basic justice, but also with the direction of reform.

Across the country, judges have allowed women to change their child’s surname to remove the toxic influence of a rapist father. But in this case, the court forced her to keep it. This child deserves safety, dignity, and a future free from the stigma of a man who abused her, and her mother.

That is why her mother has turned to Good Law Project for help. This isn’t just about one child or one name. It is about setting a precedent – one that forces courts to recognise trauma, protect survivors, and prevent abusers from holding a lifelong claim over their victims.

Survivors deserve better. Children deserve better. The system must change. 

• Charlotte Proudman continues to represent D’s mother, as her barrister.