High Court judge decides whether children exist in ‘perplexing’ custody case

Mrs Justice Arbuthnot says she has ‘sense of having stumbled into an alternative reality’ as she rules whether a mother or father were lying

A judge has had to rule on whether two children exist in a “perplexing” High Court case over custody.
Mrs Justice Arbuthnot had to decide whether a mother or father were lying about the existence of their two children.
The mother claimed they had never been born, which, if true, would have denied the father the right of access to the children.
The father, known only as AA for legal reasons, claimed the mother, known as ZZ, was lying and that he had evidence to support his contention.
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.”
Across several hearings in London between November 2023 and May 2024, the man, AA, 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.
The births of the two children were never registered but the man 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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
ZZ’s GP had no record of a pregnancy although there was 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.”