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, as reported by the BBC.
An ex-husband told the court that he has reason to think that his ex-wife had been pregnant when they ended their relationship and that she had given birth to twins, who would now be three years of age. However, no births had been registered, and there was no supporting evidence in medical records.
The father told the court he wanted to have contact with his twin sons but his wife disputed the fact she had ever been pregnant and claimed her ex was ‘coercive and controlling’. The couple had married in 2019, but separated a year later in 2020. The ex-husband claimed that the twins were born the following February.
In a strange twist, the court heard and saw evidence that a child or children do exist. Lady Emma Arbuthnot, who presided over the case – described it as a “perplexing” situation and acknowledged the family court lacked the tools to investigate thoroughly. The ex-husband is applying for contact with the child. The judge said there will be another hearing in order to determine what happens next. Neither the ex-wife or ex-husband had lawyers, which meant they had to represent themselves, and question witnesses themselves.
The BCC reported that at times, the ex-wife looked anxious and upset, especially when a psychotherapist gave evidence under oath. A psychotherapist said the ex-wife had visited her at home in February this year, accompanied by a toddler who called her “Mummy”. The woman rebutted this statement, saying none of this was true, and that her former partner was pursuing this case to hurt her, as a form of coercive control.
Her 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.
