The court’s decision may come as a surprise to many, given the seriousness of the case and the circumstances surrounding the child’s conception. The judgment placed significant weight on preserving the child’s identity, despite serious findings of abuse against the mother.
In March, Family Recorder Judge Laura Moys ruled that changing the child’s surname would “constitute a further rupture in the link she has to her father in a way that is not justified or proportionate.”
The mother appealed, arguing that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the impact of her daughter retaining her father’s name. Notably, the child has not seen her father since 2021 and the father was asked to stop using the phrase “marital rape” in court. The father also refused to accept the findings against him and referred to them as “allegations of sexual harassment.”
When considering a surname change, the court examines factors such as the length of time the child has used the name, the effect on identity and relationships, and whether the change is necessary for protection from harm. A parent’s preference or more convenience alone is not enough. In this case, the mother argued that retaining the surname could undermine the child’s sense of security and identity.
Although complete surname changes are rare unless clearly in the child’s best interests, there have been cases where courts allowed changes following rape or sexual abuse by the father. Recent examples include DG v KB & Anor (Re EMP (A Child)) [2024] EWFC 12 (B) and BC v A Local Authority [2024] EWHC 1639 (Fam), as well as earlier decisions such as Re S (Change of Surname) [1998] EWCA Civ 1950.
While this decision stands, legal reform is on the way. The Government plans to automatically restrict parental responsibility for parents convicted of rape or other serious sexual offences, which will make surname changes easier to navigate in the future. It will be interesting to see how these reforms develop.
