A woman was found to have fabricated the births of two children and received approximately £30,000 in financial support from the man she claimed was their father, a High Court judge has ruled. The case involved a dispute over parental contact and was brought before Mrs Justice Judd in October 2024.

The parties, referred to as John and Jane in court documents to protect their identities, are in their mid-thirties and early fifties respectively. The two reportedly met at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, Jane informed John that she was pregnant, providing an ultrasound image and convincing him she was expecting a child. John testified that he physically felt a hard stomach consistent with pregnancy. However, the couple had a falling out shortly before the anticipated delivery date.

Despite the estrangement, Jane sent messages to John's family announcing the birth of a baby girl named Shiloh Rose, including a photograph and details such as the infant’s weight and time of birth. She claimed the child was being cared for by relatives and informed John that social workers had prohibited him from seeing the baby. Over the following months, John continued his relationship with Jane and provided financial support, even though he never saw the child.

In 2024, Jane announced another pregnancy. Following another dispute, John’s mother observed Jane to be visibly pregnant. Later that same month, Jane sent messages saying she had given birth to a boy named Aryeh and shared photographs of the infant. Jane continued to assert that both children were living with her niece, maintaining contact with John and other family members through messages and images.

John grew increasingly concerned about the whereabouts of the children and sought legal intervention to establish parental responsibility and access. Jane applied for a non-molestation order, alleging verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by John. During a hearing related to this order, Jane’s lawyer admitted that there were no children, stating Jane had experienced two miscarriages.

Mrs Justice Judd found that John had been the victim of "a sustained and elaborate campaign of deceit" and suggested fraud may have been the motive, given the substantial sums of money paid to Jane. The judge noted that there were no records from social services or police concerning the existence of the children. The case highlights the complexities that can arise in family law when allegations involve disputed facts of parenthood and deception.