A new dad avoided almost £20,000 in child maintenance payments to his ex after using his uncle’s DNA during a paternity test.
Guilty: Father Leaving Court
The 32 year-old engineer lied he was not his three year-old son’s father and deliberately deceived a doctor by sneaking out to his car to complete the test.
The mother of the child was left “shocked, gutted and upset” when informed, but was determined to expose the truth, knowing the DNA test had somehow been cheated.
Last week the father, of Gravesend, Kent - who cannot be identified in order to protect his son’s identity - was sentenced at Bexley Magistrates’ Court.
He pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation on June 19, 2020, namely providing a false DNA sample to the Child Maintenance Group (CMG).
The court heard he avoided paying £18,479.41 towards his toddler son’s care, resulting in the child’s mother struggling to cope and skipping meals to save money.
Prosecutor Denise Clewes said he was probed by the Child Support Agency’s Financial Investigation Unit after submitting a negative DNA test via Genetrack on June 19, 2020.
“He supplied that to the CMG to show he was not the father of the child, knowing it was not his DNA, but a third party - his uncle.
“The mother of the child made an application, naming him as the father, but he disputed parentage and provided a DNA test via an approved company.
“This was challenged by the mother who provided a statement and the child’s birth certificate, on which the defendant was named as the father and that he was the only person who could be the father.
“He refused to provide another DNA test to the CMG, saying that he had already paid for one privately.”
“The CMG then took DNA from both the mother and the child and the defendant was arrested at his home address and taken to Gravesend Police Station, where DNA was taken for comparison.
“He maintained that the DNA submitted in the earlier test was his, but eventually admitted he asked his uncle to provide a DNA saliva swab on his behalf.
“He deliberately removed some of the packaging so the doctor did not know the full protocol to follow and went out to his car to swab the sample and then return to the surgery.
“The police DNA test was positive that he was the father of the child and not the DNA provided via Genetrack,” added Ms Clewes.
“His uncle was spoken to and confirmed he knew what it was about, but thought the DNA was something to do with his nephew’s work.”
The defendant’s ex, who has at least one other daughter, said in a victim impact statement: “The incident effected me in so many ways.
“I was on holiday when I got the call saying my son was not his and I was shocked.
“I felt he had overall control and was trying to get out of payment and when the news came through I was gutted and upset, but knew something had been tampered with.
“I had to get the right result for my son. It was a huge weight off my shoulders.
“When the payments stopped I struggled a lot and knew I should not be in this position.
“I had to tighten the purse strings and sometimes just had a cup of tea or coffee instead of a meal so my children could eat.”
His lawyer Tessa Donovan told the court: “He made an extremely poor decision and it is the first time he has committed a serious criminal offence.
“There is no excuse for his behaviour, but he was not coping well at the time and had been prescribed anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medication.
“He panicked regarding money and knows his behaviour was not attractive and he is very sorry for his actions.”
The defendant was supported in court by his new girlfriend. “She was shocked when she found out about the offence, but realised it was out off character,” added the lawyer.
He provided character references to the court, which heard he is now paying £680 per month to cover current payments and the arrears.
He was sentenced to a twelve month Community Order, which includes 200 hours community service work and fifteen days of a rehabilitation activity requirement.
“We have had a look at the probation report and the character references,” announced magistrate Shirley Muckell.
“This was a fraudulent at the outset to get away with paying for your son, but you are remorseful and you are now paying money both for maintenance and the arrears.”
He must also pay a £114 victim surcharge and £85 costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment