Ex-partner battles in High Court for access to his three-year-old twins who the mother says do not exist - as 'perplexed' judge says case makes her feel like she has 'stumbled into an alternative reality'

A judge has told of having 'stumbled into an alternative reality' when ruling in London's High Court in a battle between ex-partners over access to three-year-old twins who the mother says do not exist. 

Lady Emma Arbuthnot has now said there is 'some evidence' that at least one child was born, in what she described as a 'perplexing' case.

The ex-husband from the separated couple insists he believes his wife was pregnant when they parted and gave birth to twin boys, who would now be aged three - and with whom he wants to have contact.

But his ex-wife denies ever being pregnant, while accusing her former partner of 'coercive and controlling behaviour' - and no births have been registered.

Yet the High Court heard there was evidence at least one child does exist, said by the ex-husband to have been born after the couple married in 2019 then split in 2020.

Lady Arbuthnot said in her ruling that she believed a birth to have taken place in a private hospital though was unable to say where the child was now.

She also told of being 'struck' by the difficulties of exploring facts without lawyers representing the couple.

The judge added that 'the Family Court cannot act as an investigator' and that a different conclusion 'may well' have been reached with more evidence.

Leading family barrister Lucy Reed described such cases as 'extremely challenging' for family courts.

She said: 'It would be difficult for an outsider to believe a tale involving the many twists and turns.'

The man, referred to as AA for legal reasons, said the woman - described as ZZ - had informed him of her being pregnant, seeing a midwife and also the babies' weight.

She told the court she had never been pregnant and her ex-husband 'doctored' evidence suggesting otherwise as 'revenge' after she reported one of his relatives to police. 

Lady Arbuthnot's 74-page ruling found 'insufficient evidence' to say whether the woman gave birth to twins.

She added: '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.

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