A woman orchestrated an elaborate and sustained campaign to convince her former partner that she had given birth to two children who almost certainly never existed, a High Court judge has determined. The man, referred to as John during proceedings, brought the case to the Family Court after learning that the woman had allegedly sold their two children for a combined £500.
According to reporting on the judgment, the man was in his early 30s while the woman, referred to as Jane in court documents, was in her early 50s. Over the course of two years, the man transferred approximately £30,000 to the woman while receiving messages and photographs purporting to show the children.
The deception began in late 2022 when the woman told her partner she was pregnant and provided ultrasound images. As months progressed, she appeared visibly pregnant. In May 2023, shortly before the first baby's expected arrival, the woman contacted police claiming she had been assaulted by the man. He was arrested and subsequently held on remand for several months, Mrs Justice Judd noted in her ruling, which was published on Friday, 2 October 2026.
How did the woman maintain the deception?
Following the man's arrest, the woman sent a message to his stepfather announcing that the baby had been born and shared photographs of an infant. She escalated her efforts by sending voice messages to the man's mother in the early hours of the morning, with the sound of a baby crying audible in the background. According to additional reporting on the case, the woman had played a YouTube video of a crying baby to create the illusion of a newborn during these communications.
The woman subsequently claimed she had become pregnant a second time, with the baby due in August 2024. However, the couple separated before this date and did not reconcile. She then informed the man's mother that the second child had been born.
What evidence did the court examine?
During the February hearing, the woman admitted to the court that she had fabricated the pregnancies and that no children existed. She claimed she had acted out of revenge, alleging that the man had abused her. However, substantial evidence contradicted her account of the pregnancies.
The woman acknowledged she was menopausal at the time and therefore could not have been pregnant. Bank statements demonstrated that she had visited a tanning salon on the day she claimed to have given birth. According to the judgment details, there was no evidence of any births recorded on the woman's phone, and neither the local authority nor police held any records of births.
What was the judge's conclusion?
Mrs Justice Judd determined that
the "factors that weigh against the children genuinely existing were very strong, stronger than the factors pointing the other way". She characterised the woman's conduct as a
"sustained and elaborate campaign of deceit"that extended beyond the man himself to affect his mother and closest friend.
The judge emphasised the cruelty inherent in the deception, stating:
"Added to this, the behaviour was cruel, leading a man and his mother to believe they had children and grandchildren respectively."She described the case as
"extraordinary"in nature.
What motivated the woman's behaviour?
Mrs Justice Judd stated she was unable to definitively establish the woman's motive for the sustained deception. However, she identified financial fraud as a potential explanation, noting that the woman had received substantial sums from the man over two years. The judge also acknowledged that
the "complex mental health problems"the woman experienced may have contributed to her actions.
Key Facts
- The man transferred approximately £30,000 to the woman over two years based on the false belief that he was the father of two children
- The woman sent ultrasound images, baby photographs, and voice messages with recorded infant sounds to maintain the deception
- No evidence of births existed in medical records, police files, or local authority documentation
- The woman admitted during the hearing that she had fabricated both pregnancies and that the children did not exist
- The judgment was handed down in February 2026 and published publicly on Friday, 2 October 2026
