Re EZ (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Nigerian Fertility Clinic & Maternity Hospital) [2025] EWFC 122

This case was about determining the true parentage and provenance of a baby, Eleanor, brought to the UK under disputed circumstances involving alleged deception and trafficking. ​

Background:

This case concerned a nine-month-old girl, referred to as Eleanor (not her real name), who was brought to the UK by a couple claiming to be her biological parents. ​

Her purported parents, PM and PF, originally from Nigeria, moved to the UK in June 2023 with their sons, J and K. PM worked as a care worker and PF as a delivery driver. Soon after arriving, PM claimed to be pregnant, despite consistent medical evidence disproving it.

Between July 2023 and May 2024, PM underwent several tests—pregnancy, ultrasounds, and CT scans—all confirming she was not pregnant. Despite this, she insisted she was, even refusing treatment for a potentially life-threatening abdominal mass, claiming it was unrelated to her alleged pregnancy. PM also claimed unusually long gestations, including 21, 13, and 30 months for previous children, and 56 weeks for Eleanor.

On 3 June 2024, PM travelled alone to Nigeria, informing her GP she planned to give birth there and return with her baby. She returned to the UK on 6 July with a baby, Eleanor, and a Nigerian birth certificate naming herself and PF as Eleanor’s parents. Upon arrival at Gatwick Airport, PM was arrested, and Eleanor was taken into police protection and placed in foster care in West Sussex.

Leeds City Council commenced care proceedings, alleging Eleanor was trafficked and that PM and PF had misrepresented her parentage. Eleanor was moved to Leeds under an interim care order on 9 July and has remained in foster care since.

Evidence:

The court considered expert evidence from Mr Gerald Jarvis, an obstetrician and gynaecologist with over 50 years’ experience, and Ms Henrietta Coker, a British-trained social worker with nearly 30 years’ experience in African contexts, who provided cultural insights and conducted investigations in Nigeria. The court also heard from the putative parents, PM and PF, and from PM’s employer.

The courts findings:

The judge found that PM and PF are not Eleanor’s biological or legal parents; PM did not give birth to her, and both fabricated evidence and lied about her origins. Eleanor was brought to the UK under concealed circumstances, causing her significant emotional harm. The first three questions on her parentage were therefore answered in the negative. Regarding the fourth question, concerning PM and PF’s state of mind, the court found that PM, though influenced by grief over her late son, she knowingly took part in the deception. PF denied telling a nurse in February 2024 that he was no longer with PM, but the judge found this untrue, suggesting PF may have distanced himself amid growing doubts about PM’s pregnancy claims.

While the judge acknowledged PM and PF’s good character, strong work ethic, and devoted parenting of their sons, the overall evidence showed they had knowingly misled authorities about Eleanor’s true origin and parentage.

Conclusion:

Although Eleanor’s biological parents were unknown and not parties to the case, it was appropriate to determine her future under care proceedings (Part IV, Children Act 1989) rather than through wardship. The judge cited similar cases, including A Local Authority v The child C [2024] EWFC 336. The court found the section 31 threshold met: Eleanor suffered significant harm when brought to the UK without her parents and placed in PM and PF’s care. The harm was attributable to the inadequate care she would likely receive from them if no order were made.

Commentary:

Hazel comments that whilst this case raises no new legal issues under Part IV of the Children Act 1989, it stands out for its unique facts and the complex moral, cultural, and psychological issues involved.

Unlike typical care proceedings involving abuse or neglect, this case centres on child trafficking—highlighting a less common but equally serious form of harm. Notably, PM and PF were law-abiding individuals with no criminal history, challenging assumptions that trafficking is only committed by those with malicious intent.

PM’s grief over losing her infant son, combined with cultural beliefs and desperation, made her vulnerable to unethical actions. PF’s role—whether active or passive—illustrates how emotional dynamics can cloud judgment.

The case also draws attention to global issues such as baby farming and the exploitation of vulnerable women, underscoring systemic failures driven by poverty, stigma, and unregulated practices.

Crucially, it highlights the lasting harm caused by deception, particularly to a child’s identity and emotional well-being. Eleanor’s case underscores the importance of truth in safeguarding a child’s psychological health.

Ultimately, the judgment reaffirms that a child’s welfare—physical and emotional—must remain paramount, even in the face of culturally complex and morally ambiguous situations.

Case Summary by Hazel Samuriwo, with permission from The Family Law Week.

Re EZ (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Nigerian Fertility Clinic & Maternity Hospital) [2025] EWFC 122 judgment

For a more detailed analysis of this case and key takeaways for practitioners, please see the full case note by the author here.

3rd Jun 2025

Call 2021| Admitted as a Solicitor: 2016