THE DADDY OF ALL DNA TEST FAILURES!
UNWILLING FATHER SENT ANOTHER MAN TO PATERNITY TEST... HIS BROTHER
A MAN who refused to accept a baby was his decided to get someone else to take his paternity test – but the plan backfired spectacularly when he chose his younger brother, writes Suzy Gibson.
The test came back negative, indicating he was not the dad, but that he was nevertheless related to the baby.
The brothers’ scheme was uncovered when the baby’s mum challenged the result and was shown a photo of the man who had taken the test.
A RELUCTANT father who was trying to avoid child maintenance payments persuaded someone else to stand in for a DNA paternity test - which backfired spectacularly when he chose his brother.
Christian Robinson’s scheming was exposed when the child’s mother queried the results of the test which showed the man who took it was related to her child, but was not its father.
And when she was shown a picture of the man who took the test at a doctor’s surgery, she said he looked like a “young version” of her ex-partner.
It was in fact his brother, Samuel Robinson, whom she had never met.
The brothers, of Leicester Road, Shepshed, were then charged with jointly committing fraud by false representation, which they admitted when the case came to Leicester Crown Court.
Priya Bakshi, prosecuting, told Leicester Crown Court that Christian, now 26, was in a relationship with the woman when she became pregnant in 2017 and they split up shortly before the birth in January 2018.
The baby’s mother made a child maintenance application in February and named Christian as the father, which he denied and requested a DNA test.
The prosecutor said that on March 18, 2018, Samuel took the test in his brother’s name and a week later it came back as negative - but showed that the person who gave the sample was related to the baby.
The mother challenged the results, which led to the deception coming to light.
In the meantime, Christian had amassed £5,500 in child maintenance arrears.
The prosecutor claimed that the mother could potentially have lost out on more than £60,000 if he had escaped liability.
The court heard that Samuel, now 20, was in training to be a soldier at the time and is now a lance corporal with a “promising Army career” that hung in the balance, depending on the sentence.
In mitigation, the court heard that Christian deeply regretted his actions and leading his then 17-year-old brother into trouble.
Although currently on benefits, Christian is now contributing towards the maintenance arrears.
Samuel’s advocate, Helen Johnson, said: “It was a moment of misjudgment when he became involved to assist his older brother.
“He will be punished by the Army, if he’s able to stay in, and will face demotion.
“He hopes to avoid discharge in a career he’s worked so hard for. Nearly three years later he’s a totally different man.”
Judge Timothy Spencer QC told Christian: “This is deeply shameful. It was serious deceit.
“The child maintenance system depends to a large extent on the trust of people, who rightly become the subject of it, being decent and honest with the system.
“What did you do? You tried to cheat it.”
He said that Christian had to
“bear the major brunt” for putting his younger brother’s career in jeopardy.
He said Christian had one previous conviction - for perverting justice, by giving false details in relation to a motoring offence, for which he received a suspended jail sentence in 2015 - and he was in the “last chance saloon” from the courts.
He added: “I’m satisfied your remorse and shame are wholly genuine.
“You’re hard-pressed for money and on benefits, but are now paying something towards the shortfall of child maintenance.
“I expect you to get a job to pay your dues.”
Christian was given a 15-month jail sentence, suspended for two years.
Judge Spencer told Samuel: “What a career you have forged, with all that promise ahead of you - and you’re now in the crown court. I’m told by your troop commander you are an exceptional soldier and I’m going to pass an exceptional sentence in your case.”
The judge added: “You were placed in an invidious position by an elder brother, who you no doubt looked up to, asking for a brotherly favour. “You couldn’t have realised the consequences of what he was asking and he exploited your naivety. “This is your only brush with the law and I’m confident the court won’t see you again.
“I want to see you continue to flourish in the Army and not damage your prospects. This country needs exceptional soldiers like you and this offence is nowhere near the scale where the Army should consider damaging your career. “It is their decision, but I appeal to them to allow you to continue.” Samuel received a six-month conditional discharge.
This means the offence is registered as a criminal record, but no further action on the matter will be taken unless he commits a further offence within that time period.
I’m told you are an exceptional soldier and I’m going to pass an exceptional sentence in your case Judge Spencer