A mother caught out a DNA examiner who helped her child’s father pretend to be unrelated to their son so he could evade maintenance payments.
Lab worker Robert Patel provided a saliva sample, forged a doctor’s signature and used an official stamp after being asked to skew the test results.
HGV driver Sheldon Brown, 26, left Chelsea Miller, 31, three days after the birth of their son Louie in March 2022, The Sun reports.
Ms Miller said she ‘always knew who the father of my child was’ but was ‘left questioning everything’ after Brown denied being Louie’s father.
A court heard Brown would save £94,000 in maintenance if it was proved he was unrelated to the child – his aunt then asked Patel to skew the results.
But after the Child Maintenance Service said the test supposedly taken by Brown was negative Ms Millar managed to persuade Brown’s mother Katie to provide DNA at a private lab.
The sample proved Louie was Katie’s grandson and the fake DNA swab matched Patel, 38, who had a conviction in 2017 for stealing £1,600 from a disabled person.
There was no evidence he received payment for the scam.
Chelsea Millar (pictured) managed to persuade Brown’s mother Katie to provide DNA at a private lab
Ms Millar said: ‘I always knew who the father of my child was, but I was left questioning everything’
Lab worker Robert Patel provided a saliva sample, forged a doctor’s signature and used an official stamp after being asked to skew the test results (file image)
Patel and Brown both admitted conspiracy to defraud at Guildford crown court, The Sun reported.
Brown, of Hampton, south west London, was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail and Patel, of Feltham, west London, got 33 weeks.
Ms Millar said online in the wake of the saga: ‘I always knew who the father of my child was, but I was left questioning everything.
‘The level of unprofessionalism and violation of trust in this case is beyond unacceptable.
‘Patients deserve to feel safe and respected when receiving care, especially in situations as sensitive as this.
‘I sincerely hope this review encourages others to proceed with caution and prompts the relevant authorities to ensure such behaviour is never repeated.’
