UK paternity-fraud victims press for birth DNA testing as law lags behind heartbreak

Victims of paternity fraud in the United Kingdom are speaking out about the lasting damage and urging lawmakers to act. Michael Thompson, 46, and others describe how the happiest day of their lives was followed by years of grief, anger and upheaval when DNA tests revealed that the child they raised was not biologically theirs. The case, among several in the country, highlights a practice known as paternity fraud—the deliberate misidentification of a child’s biological father—and underscores a gap in the law: paternity fraud is not a crime in England and Wales, but a civil matter.

Thompson’s story illustrates the emotional toll. In 2017 he began a relationship with a partner he believed he could build a family with, but the bond fractured and, after the couple separated, he moved to Berlin with no firm plans to return. The following year his partner told him she was pregnant. He flew back to the United Kingdom, and their child was born in 2018. For months, Thompson watched the child resemble the mother more than him and began to fear something was wrong. In 2020, driven by lingering doubts, he conducted a private DNA test to settle the matter. The result confirmed he was not the biological father. Thompson recalls his world changing in an instant: the idea of adoption was discussed, the relationship with the child ended, and he later found himself tearing down the walls of a nursery he had once filled with joy. He says the memory still haunts him, with flashbacks tied to what he once believed was the family’s bright future.

In a separate case, Ryan Hampson, then 26, thought he had a future as a father after his ex-partner, Beth Fernley, told him she was pregnant and provided him with DNA test results that appeared to confirm paternity. For two years he formed a bond with the child, but concerns grew when a friend suggested the child might have another biological father. He pressed for a DNA test, and the results sent his world into a tailspin: there was no record of him in the DNA company’s system, and the child’s biological father appeared to be someone else. Fernley later forged documents and sent Ryan a fake letter from the DNA company claiming an error had been found. The truth changed everything; the young child had a different father, and Ryan’s relationship with the family fractured. In April, Fernley admitted fraud by false representation and was sentenced to 13 months in jail, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to undertake rehabilitation, 200 hours of unpaid work, and to pay a small sum in compensation and a statutory charge. The case underscored that deception can have severe, long-lasting consequences for the people who believed they were part of a real family.

Claire Hampson, 49, is in a different position within the same tragedy: she became a deceived grandmother. In 2019, her son Ryan rekindled a relationship with Fernley, who produced DNA results that gave the impression he was the child’s father. For two years Ryan cared for the baby and formed a close bond. But in 2021 Fernley’s forged documents began to unravel, and the family learned the child was not biologically Ryan’s. Fernley later sent a forged letter from the DNA company, attempting to backtrack on the lies. Ryan’s relationship with the child deteriorated as investigators confirmed the fraud, and the family faced a painful reckoning about the bond they had formed. The emotional impact extended beyond the nuclear family to the wider kinship network, including Thompson’s and Hampson’s relatives, who describe their own sense of loss and disruption as the truth emerged.

The court cases brought a measure of accountability. Fernley ultimately admitted fraud by false representation in Liverpool Crown Court and received a suspended sentence that reflected the seriousness of the deception but left a question mark over how such acts should be punished and deterred in the future. Police and prosecutorial statements at the time emphasized that the deceit caused enduring emotional harm to victims and their families, not simply a financial loss. The case also highlighted how a single fraudulent act can ripple through multiple generations of a family, complicating relationships, trust, and the ability to form new attachments.

Now, Thompson and Hampson are channeling their experience into advocacy. They have formed and joined groups that argue for a change in the law to require DNA testing at birth for mothers and fathers, with the aim of preventing the emotional and financial devastation that can follow a false paternity claim. The pair are scheduled to meet Sarah Hall, the Labour MP for Warrington South, to discuss legislative changes. Their overarching aim is not to criminalize consensual decisions but to introduce safeguards that ensure all parties understand the true biological link before a child is registered and a family is allowed to bond in the long term.

The legal framework in the United Kingdom currently treats paternity fraud as civil fraud rather than a crime. While the veracity of paternity can be challenged in family courts, the act of providing false information on a birth certificate is governed by civil law, not a criminal statute. A 2018 study from the University of Warwick cited a prevalence of about three percent among men in the UK who believe they are the biological father, a figure that underscored the scale of the issue but is not comprehensive of the total number affected because many cases remain private and stigmatized. Advocates argue that the true impact is broader when extended family and mental health consequences are counted, and that present protections are inadequate to deter or remediate the harm.

The Home Office has acknowledged that fraud, including paternity fraud, is a serious crime in the sense that false declarations about birth or parentage can lead to criminal convictions. However, officials said there are no current plans to mandate DNA testing before birth registration, and the department emphasized that the law already criminalizes false declarations to a registrar. Advocates say this stance leaves victims without a clear path to justice and restitution and fails to acknowledge the ongoing harm suffered by children who grow up without stable, legally recognized parental ties.

The two families are not isolated cases. They say they have spoken with other men and grandparents who have endured similar betrayals, often years into a child’s life, when the truth finally comes to light. The emotional scars can persist long after the financial effects are felt, including estrangement from siblings, extended families, and the communities that once shared in the child’s early life. Thompson and Hampson argue that recognizing paternity fraud as a form of abuse would provide stronger protections and deter future deception. They insist that the wounds caused by such fraud are not solely personal; they affect the fabric of family life and the well-being of children who depend on stable parental relationships for their development.

In addition to promoting policy reform, supporters emphasize that any approach should avoid stigmatizing mothers who may have faced coercive or abusive circumstances themselves. The goal, they say, is to create a system that safeguards the child’s best interests, upholds truth in parentage, and supports families in navigating the consequences of discovery without compounding harm through punitive or procedural rigidity. Advocates acknowledge that changes will require careful balancing of rights and responsibilities, along with a robust support framework for those who find themselves at the center of paternity disputes.

The topic remains controversial and politically sensitive. Proponents argue that mandatory testing at birth would be a preventative measure that reduces harm and helps families establish clear parental links from the outset. Opponents caution that mandatory screening could impose privacy concerns and may disproportionately affect women in vulnerable situations. The debate, however, continues to gather momentum among lawmakers, clinicians, and advocacy groups who are increasingly convinced that the status quo inadequately protects families from the pain of deception and its long-lasting consequences.

As Thompson and Hampson prepare to meet with their MP, their message is clear: the time has come to acknowledge the real harm caused by paternity fraud and to pursue practical reforms that protect children and parents alike. The stories of a father who believed he was building a life with a child, only to learn that the bond was built on a lie, and of a grandmother who witnessed a grandchild’s life unfold under false assumptions, illustrate the human cost behind legal technicalities. If the law evolves to require verifiable paternity information at or near the birth moment, supporters say, many families would be spared years of heartbreak and the social and emotional costs that accompany unresolved questions of parentage.