Mother-of-six with five children in care gave 'lethal cocktail' of prescription drugs to her 14-month-old son in a last 'act of control' before he was taken away, murder trial told

Published: 12:04, 14 May 2026 | Updated: 12:07, 14 May 2026 A mother mixed a ‘lethal cocktail’ of prescription drugs and gave them to her young child in a last ‘act of control’ before he was taken into care, a court heard today. Emma Barnett, 36, is said to have ‘set a false trail’ by informing the authorities she had driven to woodland with her 14-month-old son, Oakley, before 'holing up' in her loft. By the time police found them, she had allegedly fed him the deadly concoction from a syringe and bottle. Officers and a neighbour who happened to be a paediatric doctor fought to save the toddler by giving him CPR but he died in hospital several weeks later when his life support was switched off. Mother-of-six Barnett – whose five other children had been taken away from her – tried to hang herself in the loft after officers forced their way in but she was saved and brought down. She was later charged with murder but claimed to police she had intended to drink the drug-laced mixture herself  and got the bottles mixed up as she fed her son. Opening the case against her, prosecutor Chris Paxton KC said: ‘It is a sad and tragic reality of this case that the defendant mixed a deadly combination of medication, of drugs prescribed to her, in baby bottles and a syringe, to end the life of her son Oakley, before she sought to end her own life using that blue rope in the loft. ‘No doubt the defendant was in turmoil that day but her actions were deliberate and purposeful in setting out to hide from the police and authorities, to set a false trail in the forest, to allow her to move up into her loft with Oakley and to ensure that they died together. Prosecutor Chris Paxton KC told jurors that Emma Barnett, 36, 'mixed a deadly combination of medication, of drugs prescribed to her, in baby bottles and a syringe, to end the life of her son' ‘Ensuring perhaps, in one last act, to demonstrate that she had control and unlike with her other five children, Oakley was not to be taken - rather they would die together.’ Barnett, who lives in the south-east of England, had been known to social workers since September 2022 and Oakley was placed on a Child Protection Plan when he was born in September the following year, Cambridge Crown Court was told. The defendant had ‘episodes of crisis when her mental health suffered’ and in July 2024, long-term fostering orders were made for four of her children, with another one going to live with its father. An interim care order was also put in place in September that year, which included providing Barnett – who had expressed concern ‘she couldn’t look after [Oakley]’ - with support from 7pm to 7am every day and throughout the day as well, when needed. A legal hearing was scheduled to take place on November 8, 2024, to decide what would happen with him but Barnett announced they were both unwell and she would have to attend via a videolink. Mr Paxton told the court: ‘We say not attending was part of the defendant’s plan to ensure she had control over what would happen to her and Oakley. ‘And, as we shall see, even if they were unwell, as the defendant claimed, she was well enough to drive her car and walk with Oakley to a local pharmacy.’ Barnett collected her prescriptions for Promethazine, an antihistamine, and Mirtazapine, an anti-depressant, while at the pharmacy, the prosecutor said, before later leaving her Nissan Leaf at Epping Forest. Barnett allegedly hid in her loft after sending the authorities on a 'false trail' by claiming she was heading to woodland This, Mr Paxton added, was ‘so that she could send the authorities, like social workers or the police, on a false trail’. After appearing online for the court hearing, the defendant allegedly messaged a social worker at around 7pm, saying: ‘I’m going to the Forest.’ She added ‘gotta lose my phone now’, sparking a frantic police search. Her car was located at 10pm and it wasn’t until around 11.30pm that officers looking in her home heard a ‘baby cry’ and realised the noise was coming from the loft, it is claimed. They were unable to open the hatch, however, as Barnett was allegedly sitting on it, although she insisted her son was ‘fine’. By 12.15am, she was given an ultimatum of allowing a camera in the loft to make sure Oakley was okay or police ‘would have to come in’. ‘Just after the officer gave those two options… the defendant said, and I quote “I killed him”,’ Mr Paxton said. The officers then forced their way in and called an ambulance after finding Oakley ‘limp and lifeless’, with ‘white fluid around his mouth and nose’. As he was passed through the hatch, Barnett ‘put a noose around her neck and tried to hang herself’ but her weight was taken by an officer, while another cut the rope. Oakley’s heart was restarted following CPR but he remained in a coma and died at the Royal London Hospital on December 31 after life support was withdrawn. A post-mortem examination showed he had suffered a ‘catastrophic brain injury’ as a result of cardiac arrest caused by the prescription drugs in his system, which suppressed his ability to breathe. Barnett claimed during her first police interview that she had intended to use one of Oakley’s bottles to mix the ‘deadly cocktail’ for her own suicide attempt as the authorities were taking him away’. Asked if she had ‘accidentally’ given the bottle to her son, she told officers: ‘Must’ve done if it was in his system.’ In a subsequent interview, she claimed that she might have ‘laid on him’ while in the loft and insisted she ‘did not want to harm or hurt’ him. Mr Paxton told the court doubt was cast on Barnett’s claims because traces of the prescription drugs were found on two bottles in the loft and the syringe. She also allegedly paid money into the account of two of her children with a transaction reference of ‘love you forever’ but didn’t set aside anything for her youngest child. Mr Paxton described the payments as ‘a final goodbye, knowing that she was to take Oakley’s life later and perhaps her own’. He added: ‘The prosecution’s case is that a close examination of the evidence will reveal the defendant’s claim of accident is a lie and that her actions at the time were deliberate and with a deadly purpose, intending to kill Oakley.’ Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.