Judge asked to rule whether two children exist in ‘unusual’ High Court case

An “unusual” dispute between a former couple has led to a High Court judge having to make a ruling on whether two children exist.

The purported father, known as AA for legal reasons, brought legal proceedings over a bid to have contact with two children whose alleged mother, known as ZZ, claimed were never born.

Across several hearings in London between November 2023 and May 2024, he claimed that he was the father of twin sons who were living with their mother or her family, but that she had hidden the birth from GPs and other doctors.

He alleged that over two years she told him that she was pregnant, had seen a midwife, the weight of the babies once they were born and that they looked like him.

The lies one of them had told had been complicated, persistent and very well planned and executed

But the woman told the court that she was never pregnant and that her ex-partner had doctored evidence of pregnancy as “revenge” for her reporting one of his family members to the police.

She also claimed that AA had been controlling and coercive towards her and that she had lied about being pregnant and having a subsequent termination to “extricate herself” from the relationship.

In a ruling on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot called the case “perplexing” and “unusual”, stating she had a “sense of having stumbled into an alternative reality” during proceedings.

She ruled that there was “strong evidence” the woman was previously pregnant and that she “wanted to cover (it) up”, deeming there to be “some evidence that at least one child was born”.

But the judge said there was “insufficient evidence” to say the woman gave birth to twins, and that she “cannot say” where the child is currently.

She said: “This is an unusual case because either (AA) or (ZZ) had lied about the pregnancy and the birth of these children for more than three years.”

She continued: “The lies one of them had told had been complicated, persistent and very well planned and executed.”

The man claimed that his former partner gave birth to twin boys at some time in February 2021 and later provided him with “new proof that the children existed”, but the judge said that some of the evidence in the case “points towards the twins’ existence and some the other way”.

While a witness told the court they saw the woman while she was pregnant and saw a child with her in a car, the General Registrar Office, which registers births in England and Wales , found no births registered under either of the pair’s family names.

The man claimed that as well as comments made in recorded conversations, his former partner had shown him ultrasound scans, pictures and other documents related to the children.

On the one hand the lie she told about never being pregnant and therefore not seeking a termination may have been told because of the effect on her reputation in her community, on the other hand, if she had been pregnant contrary to her assertions, she would have known that that would be significant support for (AA’s) case

Although the woman accepted making the comments, the judge said it was her case “that these were not truthful comments but ones orchestrated and controlled” by her ex-partner, and that “doctored” documents were “not authentic”.

The judge accepted that he “had been abusive” to the woman, but that the “extent of the abuse was hard to determine” and that while ZZ “was under her ex-partner’s control”, this “did not necessarily indicate that the twins did not exist”.

In a 74-page judgment, the judge also ruled that some of the evidence for AA’s claims was “probably forged” to substantiate his claims, including WhatsApp messages he allegedly received about the children.

The court also heard from ZZ’s GP, who had no record of pregnancy, but there was also evidence that suggested that a woman had contacted a private hospital, and had enquired about “terminations, pregnancy and childbirth”.

While the hospital said no twins were born there in February 2021, the judge found that ZZ later contacted the hospital asking for none of her medical records to be stored or shared with the NHS.

This, the judge ruled, was part of efforts by the woman to “cover up a pregnancy”, although it remained “unclear” where the child was born due to the circumstances of the case.

She said: “On the one hand the lie she told about never being pregnant and therefore not seeking a termination may have been told because of the effect on her reputation in her community, on the other hand, if she had been pregnant contrary to her assertions, she would have known that that would be significant support for (AA’s) case.”