Well the judgement seems to have been that the Respondent was pregnant and that she had sought a TOP consultation at the Portland.
The rest is a mess.
The Applicant was a litigant-in-person throughout, Respondent had a KC initially, but not by later stages (wonder why?), and the judge noted that the case would have been better presented had their been lawyerly input as it was not the role of the court to investigate, rather that it was to assess the merits of the information put before it.
I suspect the Applicant had thought the court would have more of an investigatory role - he must have been thoroughly confused at the enormous pile of contradictions and concerned, if the baby/babies do exist, what sort of life they have (and given the comments about the mother's MH, whether she has made good decisions about them, and even if they are safe).
I note that later in the judgement it describes the allegations about child sex abuse that the Respondent made about the Applicant's father as false.
So even allowing for his intemperate and expletive-laden phone calls and the heaven-knows-what about the desecration of the Respondent's mother's grave (the judge believed her distress, but did not find that the call that led to the sudden reappearance in court was anything to do with the Applicant); it does seem to me that they are as bad as each other. And the judge, despite hearing directly from many people, could not sort out this mess, other than that the Respondent had been pregnant and had sought (but not attended) an appointment for a TOP.
So whether miscarriage intervened, a TOP was carried out elsewhere, if a baby or babies were born and are living; that simply isn't known. The Respondent wasn't credible enough. And even if the Applicant is a shit of the highest order, he deserves reliable information on the basic fact of the existence of the DC, rather than months/years of being strung along.