Family court judge rules on if children exist

A High Court judge has ruled that there is “some evidence” that at least one child was born in an exceptional family dispute between a separated couple.

The ex-husband told the court that he believed his wife had been pregnant when they split up and that she had given birth to twin boys, who would now be three years old.

He told the hearing he wanted to have contact with them.

The wife told the court this was not true, she had never even been pregnant, and the claims amounted to “coercive and controlling behaviour”.

No births had been registered, and there was no supporting evidence in medical records.

But the court heard and saw other evidence that a child or children do exist.

Lady Emma Arbuthnot described it as a “perplexing” case and acknowledged the family court lacked the tools to investigate thoroughly.

The judgement was published on Wednesday after a hearing that took place in May.

The ex-husband is applying for contact with the child. The judge said there will be another hearing “in due course” to determine what happens next.

On a video link in May, I watched the last hearing in this long dispute, which began more than three years ago.

The couple had married in 2019, but separated in 2020. The ex-husband said the twins were born the following February.

On opposite sides of the grand courtroom, in the Royal Courts of Justice, the smartly-dressed couple sat as far apart as they could.

Neither had lawyers, which meant they had to argue their own case, and question witnesses themselves.

At times, the ex-wife looked anxious and upset, especially when a psychotherapist gave evidence under oath.

The psychotherapist said the ex-wife had visited her at home in February this year, accompanied by a toddler who called her “Mummy”.

The ex-wife said none of this was true, and that her former partner was pursuing this case to hurt her, as a form of coercive control.

The judgment shows how the court had previously heard from other witnesses.

The ex-wife’s GP had given evidence, going through her records to show she had never been told of a pregnancy, though she had seen the ex-wife throughout that period.

The General Register Office said they had no trace of births registered between October 2020 and March 2021 to either of the parents’ names.

But there was also evidence from people who knew the couple that they had talked about the babies.

Lady Arbuthnot said recordings of conversations presented to the court “sounded authentic”.

In one call, about seven months after the twins were supposed to have been born, an old friend of the ex-wife told her former partner that the children were with their uncle. “I will be 100% honest with you,” she told him.

The ex-wife acknowledged she had told her former partner she was pregnant, sent him scans of the babies, and talked about giving birth.

She said the scans were forged, and that she had lied.

Lady Arbuthnot found that there was “strong evidence” there was a pregnancy and “some evidence” that at least one child was born.

She said this conclusion did not answer a number of questions raised by the evidence.

Lady Arbuthnot said she could not say where the birth took place, but it was likely to have been in a private hospital, and she could not say where the child is now.

Lady Arbuthnot said she was “struck” by the difficulties of exploring facts without lawyers representing the couple. She added “the Family Court cannot act as an investigator” and that some evidence “may well” have led to a different conclusion.

The leading family barrister Lucy Reed KC said the case was a reminder it can be “extremely challenging” for the family court to sift reality from fiction.

“It would be difficult for an outsider to believe a tale involving the many twists and turns” of the case, and it showed the value of publishing such judgments in the Family Court,” she said.