A High Court judge has ruled that a woman engaged in an "extraordinary" and "elaborate campaign of deceit" by convincing her former partner that she had given birth to two children who, in all likelihood, never existed. The man, identified in court documents as John, had initially approached the Family Court after being led to believe that the woman—referred to as Jane—had sold their two children for a total of £500.
During the course of their two-year relationship, the man reportedly paid the woman approximately £30,000. He had been convinced of his paternity after Jane told him she was pregnant in late 2022, provided him with ultrasound images, and appeared "visibly pregnant" as the months progressed. The deception reached a point where, in May 2023, the woman alleged that the man had assaulted her. This led to his arrest and subsequent remand in custody for several months, according to the ruling published by Mrs Justice Judd on Friday.
Following the alleged assault, the woman continued the charade by informing the man’s stepfather that the baby had been born and circulating photographs of an infant. She also reportedly sent voice notes to the man’s mother in the middle of the night, which included the sound of a baby crying in the background. Later, she claimed to be pregnant with a second child due in August 2024. Although the couple separated before that date, she maintained the lie by telling the man’s mother that the second baby had arrived.
In a hearing held this past February, the woman admitted to the court that she had fabricated the pregnancies and conceded that the children did not exist. She claimed she had lied out of revenge, alleging that the man had abused her. Furthermore, she argued that she was menopausal at the time and incapable of becoming pregnant. Mrs Justice Judd noted that bank statements corroborated this, revealing the woman had visited a tanning salon on the day she claimed to have given birth.
In her final judgement, the judge concluded that the evidence strongly favored the conclusion that no children were ever born. Describing the actions as "cruel," the judge highlighted the significant emotional impact on the man and his family. While the court could not definitively determine the woman’s motive, Mrs Justice Judd suggested that financial fraud was a "possibility" and noted that the woman’s "complex mental health problems" likely played a role in the deception.
