Woman Faked Two Births, Extorted Thousands from Man in Elaborate Deception, Judge Rules
High Court judge finds woman likely engaged in a multi-year campaign of deceit, receiving approximately £30,000 from the man who believed he was the father of her two non-existent children.
A woman has been found to have faked the birth of two children and received approximately £30,000 from the alleged father in what a High Court judge described as an "elaborate campaign of deceit."
Mrs. Justice Judd ruled that the woman, referred to as Jane in court documents, likely fabricated the story over approximately three years to make the man, identified as John, believe he was the father of children who probably never existed. The judge noted the deception was cruel, leading John and his mother to believe they had children and grandchildren.
John, who met Jane during the pandemic, believed he had been with her throughout her first pregnancy and even felt what he perceived to be her pregnant stomach. Jane sent him photographs and an ultrasound image, though John was not present for the supposed birth as he had been arrested.
Upon his release and reconciliation with Jane, she told him the baby was staying with a family member and that social workers had prohibited him from seeing the child. She also claimed to have sold the supposed second baby for £500.
Evidence presented in court indicated Jane was in her 50s, overweight, and menopausal, making childbirth unlikely. Bank statements also showed Jane attended a tanning salon on the day she claimed to have given birth. She later explained that a voice message containing a crying baby sound was made by playing a YouTube video.
John eventually applied in October 2024 to discover the children's whereabouts and claim parental responsibility. This led to Jane filing a non-molestation order against him, alleging abuse. During this time, she had claimed to have sold the babies for £500.
At a hearing for the non-molestation order, Jane's lawyer stated she had no children with John, while Jane claimed she had suffered two miscarriages. Mrs. Justice Judd found no evidence of births on Jane's phone or any records from local authorities or police.
The judge concluded that while two scenarios were presented, it was most probable that Jane engaged in a prolonged deception, possibly motivated by fraud due to the substantial financial gain, or as revenge for alleged abuse by John. The court heard that Jane received a considerable amount of money from John during the period of deception.