Woman deceived ex-partner that she gave birth to his babies, judge rules

A High Court judge has described the case of a woman who persuaded her former partner that she had given birth to two children who most likely never existed as an “extraordinary” and “elaborate campaign of deceit.” The man, referred to only as John during the hearing, took the matter to the Family Court after being told by the woman that she had sold their children for £500 in total.

Throughout the hearing, it was revealed that John had received messages and photos of the alleged children and had given the woman approximately £30,000 over a period of two years. The woman, identified as Jane in court, admitted in a February hearing that she had fabricated the pregnancies as an act of revenge, claiming that John had abused her. The court was informed that John initially believed he was the father because Jane had told him she was pregnant in late 2022, sent ultrasound images, and appeared visibly pregnant as time went on.

In May 2023, shortly before the birth of the first child was due, Jane called the police, alleging that John had assaulted her. John was arrested and detained on remand for several months, according to the ruling issued by Mrs Justice Judd. During this period, Jane sent messages to John’s stepfather announcing the baby’s birth and shared photos purportedly of the baby. At one point, she even sent voice notes to John’s mother late at night, featuring the sound of a crying baby in the background.

Subsequently, Jane told John she was pregnant again, with a due date in August 2024, but the couple eventually separated without reconciling. Jane continued to inform John’s mother that the second baby had been born. In court, Jane conceded she had lied about being pregnant on multiple occasions and admitted there were no children. Evidence presented included statements proving she was menopausal and bank records showing she visited a tanning salon on the day she claimed to have given birth. Mrs Justice Judd concluded that the evidence strongly indicated the children did not exist, deeming John a victim of a prolonged and complex deception that also affected his mother and close friends. While unable to determine Jane’s exact motives, the judge suggested financial fraud might be involved and that Jane’s mental health issues could have contributed to her actions

Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More