Secrets and Lies: Did the children ever exist?

The case of John v Jane [2026] EWHC 415 (Fam) is highly unusual. It concerned children known as Shilo and Aryeh, apparently aged 2 ½ years and 1 ½ years. The court had to determine whether they existed or not.

After the bitter end to their relationship, Jane made allegations of domestic abuse against John, in respect of which John was arrested.

John applied for Parental Responsibility for Shilo and Aryeh and an order to ascertain their whereabouts. Jane cross applied for a non-molestation order, saying early on that she had miscarried and had no children with John. She then disengaged from the process failing to cooperate or to attend, and it was only when the court compelled her to do the same by a Location Order that she attended at all.

She initially denied ever telling John that they had children together; then changed her account. She had also told John that both children had been sold. John refused to believe that the children didn’t exist. John was adamant he had seen Mother pregnant. 

Extraordinary steps were taken to locate the children such as hospital records, medical records, phone searches, searches of the Register of Births and the Passport Office. There was no sign of the children.

It was up to Mrs Justice Judd to untangle what turned out to be an elaborate web of deception. The choice faced by the court was astonishing.

Either Jane had engaged in an elaborate 3 year deception by way of face to face lies, recordings of a baby crying, faked scans, messages and more, aimed at John, his mother and others; or she had given birth in secret and either hidden the children or given them away.

In a case where Jane described herself as “very dishonest”, a multitude of findings were made against her. The judge listed at great length the number of lies she and two of her children told; she found John to be truthful, but he was wrong about what had happened. 

The children did not exist.

The judge declined to draw any conclusions about Jane’s motivation but described her behaviour as “inexplicable and inexcusable”. John was the victim of a “sustained and elaborate campaign of deceit”. 

This case shows the extraordinary lengths parties can go to deceive each other , and the lengths the court could go to expose those lies.