D (A Child)

In determining whether prospective carers knowingly participated in the fraudulent removal of a child, the court must assess the evidence as a whole. The apparent incredibility of the account is not, by itself, sufficient to establish dishonest knowledge. The court should guard against reasoning based on hindsight and should consider conduct that is objectively inconsistent with knowing participation, including repeated attempts to obtain medical confirmation, apparent efforts to secure a genuine birth, and the parties’ reactions when the fraud was revealed.

This was a care case concerning D, a child brought from Nigeria to the United Kingdom by Mr and Mrs O. They believed that Mrs O had undergone fertility treatment and had given birth to D in Nigeria. DNA testing later established that D was not their child, and he was removed from their care under an interim care order.

The central issue was whether Mr and Mrs O knowingly participated in a fraudulent process operated by a clinic in Port Harcourt, or whether they were innocent victims who had been deceived. The local authority and police accepted their account, while the guardian remained sceptical and sought careful examination of the evidence.

1. Assessment of knowledge and involvement. The court approached the case with considerable scepticism, but the fact that the account appeared incredible did not itself establish that the respondents knew of the fraud. Such reasoning would rely impermissibly on hindsight and would beg the question that required determination.
2. Evaluation of the evidence. The respondents were consistent witnesses under detailed questioning. More importantly, their conduct was objectively inconsistent with knowing participation. Mrs O repeatedly consulted doctors in the United Kingdom and Nigeria, sought explanations for the absent pregnancy, attempted to arrange antenatal care, and continued to seek confirmation that the treatment was genuine. She also intended to give birth in the United Kingdom and took nothing with her on a later trip to Nigeria, which was inconsistent with an intention knowingly to collect a child there.
3. Overall conclusion. The combination of the repeated medical consultations, travel, apparent preparations for a genuine pregnancy and birth, the respondents’ prompt presentation of D to their general practitioner, and their genuine reaction to the DNA results established that they had been completely duped. They may have been gullible, but they were not dishonest and had no inkling of the scam.
4. The court also observed that the clinic’s conduct involved serious exploitation of childless parents and the fraudulent removal of substantial sums of money. It criticised the delay in securing public funding and noted the importance of proper legal representation in complex care proceedings.