FA-2025-000111 - [2025] EWHC 2756 (Fam)

Mr Justice Peel :

I am concerned with a little girl (“D”) who has recently turned 6 years old. I shall refer to her parents as M (her mother) and F (her father).

Between 3 and 6 March 2025, Recorder Moys (“the judge”) heard contested child arrangements proceedings. She made an order dated 6 March 2025 under which she provided for (in summary):

D to live with M.

Contact with F to be take place on an indirect basis only.

A s91(14) restriction preventing either party from applying for specified child arrangements orders for a period of 2 years.

M’s application for D’s surname to be changed from that of F to that of M.

No order as to costs.

Although not specified in the order, the judge also refused a continuation of a Family Law Act order previously made against F.

Judgment was handed down on 24 March 2025.

The provisions of the order at 2(i)-(iii) above were broadly in line with what M sought at trial. She now appeals against the balance of the order, specifically:

The refusal to order a change of surname (paragraph 16 of the order).

The decision not to extend the Family Law Act order.

The decision to make no order as to costs rather than to make an order in M’s favour (paragraph 19 of the order).

On 30 April 2025 Keehan J directed an oral hearing of the application for permission to appeal, with the appeal to follow if permission is granted.

Before me today, M has continued to be represented by counsel, Dr Proudman, who has made extensive written and oral submissions. At its core, M’s case is that the judge minimised the findings of serious abuse which had been made against F, and paid insufficient weight to the negative impact on both M and D of the continued use of F’s surname. In short, to be bound to the name of an abuser is, so it is submitted, clearly contrary to D’s interests. M further submits through counsel that the judge should have extended the Family Law Act order to provide M with appropriate protection in the light of the serious findings made against F. Finally, M says that the judge should have made a costs order in the circumstances of this case, to reflect F’s litigation conduct and the fact that she established a number of findings against F.

F appeared in person. He too placed before the court a detailed written submission, which he supplemented orally. The essence of his case is that the judge undertook an evaluation, and there is no basis for disturbing her conclusions.