News, views and top stories in your inbox. Don't miss our must-read newsletter Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

For three years, Julia ­Grovenburg and her husband Todd were desperate to have a baby.

And when she finally got pregnant, that wasn’t enough for the couple. They conceived another baby two and a half weeks later, odds of ­millions to one.

She gave birth to both at the same time, even though technically they weren’t twins.

Julia, 33, became one of only 11 ­women ever reported to ­conceive while ­already pregnant.

Her ­condition was ­eventually identified ­as ‘superfetation’, meaning two babies are conceived at ­different times, born on the same day, yet medically speaking they’re not ­considered to be twins.

Now, more than a year after they ­celebrated the babies’ first birthday, Julia told us: “When Todd and I first decided to have children I was really looking forward to being pregnant and all that goes with it.

“I wanted the baby clothes and the congratulations cards and I wanted to get that pregnancy glow everyone always bragged about.

“But instead of receiving flowers and ­balloons, news of my pregnancy came along with prayers that ­everything would work out.

“For a while I couldn’t be happier that I was finally able to have a baby, although it turned out to be the most stressful time of my life because no one, not even my doctors, knew what to expect.

“It’s common ­knowledge and ­written down in ­medical books that you can’t get ­pregnant while ­already pregnant.

“But ­somehow, ­after years of trying to conceive, I became ­the exception to the rule – getting pregnant twice in two weeks.”

After taking dozens of hopeful home pregnancy tests over the years, Julia and Todd, 34, ­finally got the positive results they wanted and scheduled a doctor’s appointment for the following week.

But rather than walking out of the doctor’s office as proud ­expecting parents, the ­couple were even more discouraged than before.

For a while doctors were baffled by the image on the ­ultrasound showing two separate babies in two separate sacs. One was larger and more developed than the other. Right away, based on size ­difference, twins were ruled out.

At a loss for words, the doctor couldn’t explain what was happening inside Julia’s womb.

“Initially, at our first ultrasound, the technician suggested we were 11 weeks pregnant,” says Julia.

“But since I’d been taking ­pregnancy tests routinely every month, Todd and I knew that number wasn’t ­accurate because I’d had my ­period in-between the time frame.

“It was more likely to be eight or nine weeks we thought.”

Without hesitation the nurse rang to find Julia’s doctor to get a second opinion, but his observation was more alarming than anyone would have expected.

“Our doctor rushed in to see what was going on and ­frantically tried to explain what we saw on the screen,” says Julia.

“He said: ‘Well Julia, you’re not having twins but you are having two babies’. Our doctor found the news incredible, like it was some medical breakthrough he’d discovered.

“But Todd and I were scared ­because we had no clue what this meant for us or our babies.”

According to the rhythm of the heartbeats and the picture displayed on the ultrasound, they were about two and half weeks apart in age.

And worse yet, their due dates were so far apart that if Julia went into labour early she could risk ­losing one or both of her babies.

“In our doctor’s 30 years of ­experience, he’d never seen anything like it,” says Julia. “Which as a ­first-time mum didn’t exactly make me feel comfortable.”

Without hesitation Julia and Todd, from Fort Smith, Arkansas, US, started planning for the worst and ­brainstormed a list of ­possible ­genetic disorders and ­deformities.

And without any ­other previous experience or even ­knowledge of the terms involved in her ­double pregnancy, Julia’s medical team was of little help.

Julia says: “When I got home from that appointment I broke down. I didn’t know if ‘two babies, not twins’ meant my babies were split in half, if they were missing limbs or if it was some type of disease I was carrying that made me get pregnant twice.

“Nobody could answer my ­questions and I didn’t even know what to ask. No one had witnessed this type of pregnancy before.

“And in a weak moment, I wished I wasn’t pregnant.”

But after taking matters into her own hands and researching ‘two babies, not twins’ on the internet, Julia found the term ­‘superfetation’, where two babies are ­conceived at ­different times, have different ­gestation periods yet are born on the same day.

Her ­doctor had never heard of it before.

“So when I told him of ­superfetation, he looked at me ­like I was crazy.

“I ended up ­being transferred ­to a ­specialised ­children’s hospital in nearby Little Rock, where even though the team of doctors had never delivered ­superfetation ­babies, they had at least ­studied the rarity of it in medical journals.”

Given the babies’ age gap, Julia’s due dates were December 24, 2009, and January 14 the following year.

But with doctors still unsure if she would give birth to one or both babies at a certain time, the main concern was to get as close to full term as possible. But after a very stressful ­pregnancy, Julia gave birth by ­caesarean to two healthy babies, Jillian and Hudson, well before their due dates on December 2.

“There wasn’t a rush to get the babies out but because Jillian was developing so rapidly our doctor thought it would be best to deliver them,” explains Julia.

“As Hudson was so ­underdeveloped we still didn’t want to put him in danger by having a ­natural birth.”

But even though both babies share the same birthday and were born only seconds apart, they will always be considered to have ­different ages, she says.

Over the course of their first year Julia says that, though hard at times, the age difference was very evident in their stages of development.

She says: “They’re still very young but everyone can tell that Jillian is the older one.

“When it comes to ­Hudson’s growth he will ­always be two and a half weeks behind ­everything Jillian does in terms of crawling and ­teething.

“Sometimes it breaks my heart to watch ­Jillian move so quickly and ­Hudson take a back seat.

“But then I have to remind myself that they’re not ­progressing at the same level for a reason.

“And when it comes to ­personalities they really couldn’t be any more different.

“Jillian is the feisty and wilful one who’s always ahead of the game and Hudson is the comedian.

“They’re both beautiful, healthy and smart babies. It is just very ­disconcerting as a mum at times that you feel ­guilty celebrating one’s baby ­success ­because you can’t celebrate ­the other’s.

“Sometimes I’ll only really count it once they can do it together.”

Their doctor advised them not to consider the babies to be twins but rather two separate babies of two different ages.

“They’re ‘twins’, but they’re not twins,” explains Julia.

“And if it sounds confusing that’s just because it is.”

Yet proving the point that her babies will forever be siblings ­rather than twins, Julia even made sure their birthday was celebrated ­separately as a way to emphasise that her babies are individuals.

With two separate birthday cakes and two separate Happy Birthday serenades, Julia got a glimpse of what the future may hold for Jillian and Hudson’s unique connection.

“Right now we know that their ­development is at two separate stages so we’re very good about calling them siblings rather than twins,” explains Julia.

“But as they get older and really start to even out their growth, we’re not really sure what will happen.

“As they come to understand their special bond, Todd and I will ­probably leave it up to Jillian and Hudson to decide whatever label they want to call themselves.

“We’re not naive to the fact ­teachers, friends and even family will call them twins – it’s inevitable and it doesn’t bother us.

“But we will leave that official title up to the kids.”