High Court judge rules woman fabricated births in campaign of deceit

A woman deceived her former partner into believing she had given birth to two children who do not exist, in what a High Court judge described as an “extraordinary” and “elaborate campaign of deceit.” The ruling was delivered by Mrs Justice Judd on Friday regarding the case of the man, referred to as John, and the woman, known as Jane.

John applied to the Family Court after being informed that Jane had sold their two children together for £500. During the relationship, which lasted around two years, he received photographs and messages purportedly of the infants and transferred approximately £30,000 to Jane.

The court heard that John believed he was the father because Jane told him she was pregnant in late 2022, shared ultrasound images, and appeared visibly pregnant. However, in May 2023, shortly before the first child’s expected delivery, Jane contacted police alleging she had been assaulted by John. He was arrested and held on remand for several months.

Following his arrest, Jane messaged John’s stepfather to claim the baby had been born and sent photos. On one occasion, she reportedly sent voice notes to John’s mother in the middle of the night featuring the sound of a crying baby in the background. She later claimed to be pregnant again, with a due date set for August 2024, but the couple separated before the birth.

In her judgment, Mrs Justice Judd noted that Jane admitted to lying about the pregnancies as an act of revenge, citing alleged abuse by John. The judge highlighted that bank records showed Jane visited a tanning salon on the day she claimed to have given birth to the first child, and testimony indicated she was menopausal and physically incapable of pregnancy.

Concluding that the evidence against the children’s existence was overwhelming, the judge stated the factors were “very strong” and even stronger than those suggesting otherwise. She described the actions as cruel, causing emotional distress to both John and his mother, who believed they had a grandchild.

While unable to definitively determine Jane’s motive, the judge suggested financial fraud was a “possibility” and noted that Jane’s “complex mental health problems” may also have contributed to her behavior.