Woman falsely convinced her ex-partner she had given birth to two children and sold them for £500 in revenge for him abusing her and her son, court hears
A High Court judge has concluded that a woman most likely deceived her former partner into believing she had given birth to two children, then told him she had sold them. The judge said the apparent campaign lasted about three years and was cruel, leaving the man and his mother believing they had children and grandchildren.
The man said he believed he had shared the first pregnancy and was sent photographs and an ultrasound image, but was arrested after the woman made allegations of assault. She later said the pregnancies were fabricated in revenge for abuse she said he had inflicted on her and her son; she also claimed a crying-baby message was made using a YouTube video. The judge cited a lack of birth evidence or official records and noted the woman said she was menopausal, as well as bank records showing she visited a tanning shop on a day she claimed to have given birth.
- Judge says the two children most likely did not exist.
- The deception allegedly lasted about three years.
- The woman said she acted in revenge for abuse.
New here? Start with this
A woman allegedly deceived her ex-partner over three years by claiming she had been pregnant with his two children and sold them for money. A High Court judge has now reviewed the case and concluded the pregnancies were likely fabricated; the man and his mother believed they had a child and grandchildren respectively during this period.
The woman has stated she made up the pregnancies as revenge for abuse she says the man committed against her and her son. The man says he believed the pregnancies were real because he was shown ultrasound images and photographs, though he was later arrested following assault allegations she made against him.
The judge found no official birth records or documentation for the children and noted other details that suggested the pregnancies never occurred: evidence the woman was menopausal, and bank records showing she visited a tanning shop on a day she claimed to have given birth. The woman later claimed a recording of a baby crying that she had provided was actually sourced from a YouTube video.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The woman claims she fabricated the pregnancies in revenge for abuse she and her son suffered from him, which led to his arrest for assault allegations. Whilst such deception was wrong, her actions occurred within a context of victimisation where formal protection failed her, and victims of abuse sometimes resort to psychological retaliation. Her actions, though indefensible in isolation, should be understood as a trauma response to serious harm rather than pure malice.
The case against
This represented a calculated, three-year campaign of psychological deception using fabricated evidence to exploit her ex-partner's desire for fatherhood, with added cruelty in falsely claiming she had sold the non-existent children. Regardless of any prior harm she experienced, the law cannot permit revenge schemes based on systematic deception, as this would undermine the legal protections that safeguard all people from such manipulation. The severity and premeditation of her actions cannot be justified by prior victimisation.