A High Court judge in the UK has concluded that a woman, identified only as Jane, fabricated two pregnancies as part of an extraordinary and sustained campaign of deceit. The deception, which lasted for two years, led her former partner, John, to believe he was a father and pay approximately £30,000. The judge, Mrs Justice Judd, described the conduct as cruel for creating false familial ties.
According to the court findings, Jane told John she was pregnant in late 2022 and sent him an ultrasound image, prompting him to believe he was becoming a father. As the alleged pregnancy progressed, Jane appeared visibly pregnant, further convincing John of her claims. Over the two-year period, John transferred roughly £30,000 to Jane based on photographs, messages, and other fabricated evidence relating to the supposed children.
The deception continued even after Jane alleged assault in May 2023, leading to John’s arrest and several months’ detention. During this time, she told his stepfather that the baby had been born and shared photographs of a newborn. Additionally, Jane sent nightly voice messages to John’s mother that included the sound of a crying baby. She later claimed a second pregnancy was due in August 2024 and informed his mother that the second child had been born.
The case reached the Family Court after John was told the alleged children had been sold for a combined £500. At a February hearing, Jane admitted that the pregnancies were fictitious. She claimed she fabricated the pregnancies as an act of revenge, alleging that John had abused her. However, the judge found that the evidence supporting the non-existence of the children was considerably stronger than any evidence supporting their existence.
The judge noted that Jane’s claim of being menopausal made pregnancy biologically impossible. Furthermore, bank records showed that she visited a tanning salon on the day she claimed to have given birth. These inconsistencies contributed to the judge’s finding that Jane’s story was fabricated. Mrs Justice Judd described John as the victim of a sustained and elaborate deception that also misled his mother and a close friend.
While the judge could not determine Jane’s precise motive, she suggested that financial fraud might have been a possible driver. The judge also noted that Jane’s complex mental-health problems may have contributed to her behaviour. The court’s decision highlighted the severity of Jane’s actions and the impact they had on John and his family.
The case highlights the complexities of deception and the importance of verifying information, especially in cases involving alleged pregnancies and children. The judge’s ruling serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of such actions and the need for support for individuals dealing with complex mental-health issues.
Key points
- A UK woman fabricated two pregnancies, deceiving her former partner into paying £30,000.
- The woman's deception lasted for two years, misled multiple people, and was described as cruel.
- The judge suggested financial fraud and mental-health problems as possible drivers of the woman's behaviour.
