The Family Court has had to yet again decide if two children exist at all.
in the case of John v Jane, “John” and “Jane” had two children – or so he thought. John is now in his mid-thirties and Jane is in her mid-fifties. In 2022 Jane told John that she was pregnant and sent him an ultrasound of the foetus. John says that he touched Jane’s stomach and it was hard, like a pregnant stomach.
In May 2023, John and Jane argued, and she alleged that he had assaulted her. He was arrested and remanded in custody for several months. Two days after the arrest, Jane sent John’s stepfather a message saying “She’s here everybody! Shiloh Rose 5lb 9 oz 1.44.am”. Further messages were sent by Jane to John’s mother at 3 am, including a voicenote in which a baby can be heard crying in the background.
Over the next few months, Jane sent several photographs of Shiloh, and told John that Shiloh was being cared for by relatives. After John was released from prison (it is not clear if he was ever convicted of assaulting Jane), they resumed their relationship, but unusually, Jane did not let John see Shiloh, and told him that social workers had said that he was not permitted to see her.
In 2024, Jane told John that she was pregnant again. John’s mother met Jane, who was “visibly pregnant” . By this time John and Jane had parted company again, but later that month, Jane sent John a message that “I’ve had him, that same night, 2.07am. I got discharged yesterday, he is in SCBU, I don’t know for how long for but social services have said they would support me with anything I need and to go home and rest”. She sent John photographs of a baby boy that she claimed she had named Aryeh. She also made further allegations of abuse by John, namely that he had attempted to break into her house, as a result of which he was arrested and made subject to bail conditions until the charges were eventually dropped in October 2024.
John sent about £30,000 in child maintenance to Jane to support the two children. He claimed that at one point Jane told him that she had sold the children for £500.
Jane continued to send John, his mother and other people photos of the children and suggested that they were both living with her niece, but John was still not allowed to meet his children.
Eventually in 2024, John applied to the Family Court for an order that their whereabouts be disclosed and for a parental responsibility order. As he had not been registered as the children’s father, he did not have parental responsibility for them. As is so often the case, Jane responded by applying to the court for a non-molestation order against John, alleging that he had had been verbally, physically and sexually abusive to her. At the hearing of the non-molestation order application, Jane’s lawyer informed the court that Jane and John did not have any children and that in fact Jane had miscarried twice. This no doubt was deeply upsetting to John.
Jane then failed to comply with the court’s directions. As a result she and her adult daughter (who had been directed to provide the court with information about the children’s whereabouts) were arrested and brought before the court where Jane again claimed that she had no children with John and that the messages and photographs were not from her. She later filed a witness statement in which she accepted that she had told John that they had children together, but that this was her daughter’s partner’s idea, as an act of revenge against John for him allegedly being violent to Jane and her adult son.
John, who had seen Jane visibly pregnant, not surprisingly found it very difficult to accept that the children did not exist, but no evidence could be unearthed to confirm that the children had ever been born. There were no local authority records and no police records that pointed to the existence of the children, and Jane’s medical records did not show, that she had ever received any ante-natal care (which one would imagine would be particularly important for what doctors used to call a “geriatric mother” in her fifties). Expert evidence stated that the ultrasound image provided to John by Jane was very old, and presumably therefore not Shiloh. John however continued to believe that the children existed and that Jane must have given birth in secret and then given the children to a family member or someone else in the travelling community.
Jane’s two adult children were both summoned to court by John to give evidence. Neither witness appears to have been much help to the court. One was rude, argumentative and swore at counsel. The other one was either drunk or under the influence of drugs and after leaving the court room for a comfort break, then left the building and did not return to complete giving her evidence.
(This is not as unusual as you might imagine. In the late nineties, I acted in a case where the court was considering whether to commit a parent to prison for breaching the terms of an non-molestation order. She called a witness to support her case, who was less than impressive to say the least. He kept calling the judge “mate”, spun an wholly unbelievable story and then asked to go to the loo, never to return. The court bailiff found him face down on the floor of the gents, where he had collapsed after snorting cocaine. He was taken to hospital and his evidence was abandoned. I recall counsel gamely seeking an adjournment on the basis that he wished to continue examining the witness; the judge witheringly said, “Do you seriously believe that there anything that witness could possibly say that will assist your client’s case?” and refused to adjourn the matter.)
At the final hearing in John v Jane, Mrs Justice Judd described the case as “most extraordinary” and held that John “was the victim of a sustained and elaborate campaign of deceit”, adding that there was a possibility that fraud was Jane’s motive as John had paid about £30,000 to Jane in child support.
It may be worth noting that Jane was represented at the final hearing by King’s Counsel and junior counsel, instructed by solicitors, (as was John). The judgment gives every impression that Jane is not affluent, although we cannot be certain about that. No doubt it assisted the court that Jane was legally represented, as her position throughout this proceeding was confused and contradictory. KCs do not come cheap though. How then could Jane afford such expensive representation?
Jane made allegations on at least two occasions that she was a victim of abuse by John. The police were involved on both occasions. We do not know if John was ever convicted in a criminal court of being abusive to her. The allegations of abuse and violence would nevertheless have entitled Jane to apply for a legal aid certificate to cover the cost of her representation in these proceedings – even if the Family Court or a criminal court never decided that she was a victim of abuse by John.
Readers may struggle to find any sympathy for Jane or to understand how she might be eligible for legal aid. Her conduct has been appalling and her case appears to be wholly without merit. The judge held that she had been dishonest about the existence of the children – but just because she lied about the existence of two children does not necessarily mean that she has also lied about whether John was abusive to her. Nevertheless, her excuse for faking the existence of two children is difficult to take seriously. In my experience, victims of domestic abuse usually want their abusers to be gone from their lives. Claiming that the alleged abuser had made her pregnant just serves to bind them together. As revenge goes, it is a very odd way to seek it.
This is not the first case where the court has had to decide whether children exist. In 2024, the court had to decide whether two children existed in the case of AA v ZZ. The facts in that case were equally quite bizarre. You can read my blog about that case here.
The Family Court does not have the power to order Jane to repay the £30,000 to John. He would need to issue a claim in the County Court to recover this sum from her. I am not a civil litigation specialist, but it is difficult to imagine that he would fail to obtain a judgment against her that she must return the funds to him, along with interest and an order for her to pay his costs. However, if she has spent it and has no assets nor much income against which to enforce any judgment, then that may be a hollow victory.
31 October 2026
If you would like to arrange a consultation, please call 01206 848426 or click here.