UPDATE: |He loved the little girl he thought was his own, then found out his cheating girlfriend was ‘playing God’ News

The man was under the fake impression that he was the little girl’s biological father for years

A mum cheated on her boyfriend and created a host of lies, leading her partner to believe another man’s child was his own.

Beth Fernley, from Warrington, “played God” and faked DNA tests which falsely claimed that her boyfriend was the baby’s father, a court has heard.

The man was under the fake impression that he was the little girl’s biological father for years until Fernley finally revealed the horrifying truth.

The man’s “entire world fell apart” and it “tore apart everything [he] had come to believe in”, reports the ECHO. A judge today (April 15) told Fernley that she “could not have complained” if she had been sent to prison but ultimately decided against imprisonment due to the mum’s parenting responsibilities.

Liverpool Crown Court heard on Tuesday that Fernley, of Wroxham Road in Great Sankey, had been in a relationship with Ryan Hampson from 2015 until around January 2019. Two months later, in March 2019, the now 26-year-old then told her former partner that she was pregnant and stated that a man named Dominic Hensey was the unborn child’s dad.

But Gareth Roberts, prosecuting, described how she then contacted him again the following month and said that she was “unclear” who the father was. Fernley went on to claim that she had completed a paternity test with a company called EasyDNA, which showed that there was a “zero per cent chance” that Mr Hensey was the dad.

The defendant went on to provide Mr Hampson with a screenshot claiming that there was a “99.9 per cent probability” that he was the father. He subsequently transferred £300 into her bank account in order to make a contribution towards the costs of these supposed DNA tests and bought items for the unborn baby.

The 27-year-old also supported Fernley and attended the birth of the child in September 2019, with his name initially being added to the girl’s birth certificate. The couple subsequently resumed their relationship and bought a property together.

But, in April 2021, Fernley provided Mr Hampson with another letter, purporting to be from EasyDNA and claiming there had been an error during the testing process. She then “admitted that she had cheated during the course of their relationship” and said that there was a “chance that it was Mr Hensey who was the father”.

Tests thereafter confirmed that Mr Hampson was not the child’s father. EasyDNA meanwhile confirmed that all of the earlier documents which bore its name had been forgeries, which had apparently been downloaded from the internet and doctored.

Fernley was also said to have contacted Mr Hensey and “admitted that she had obtained fake DNA tests” in 2019 and said that he was the biological father. Mr Hampson contacted the police in July 2022, with his ex-girlfriend being arrested in August 2023 and maintaining under interview that the documentation from EasyDNA had been genuine.

He told the court in a statement from the witness box: “For many years, I trusted someone deeply and believed in the relationship we built together. I formed a strong bond with the child who I was led to believe was my daughter.

“To find out that I was not her biological father felt like a betrayal. It tore apart everything I had come to believe in. It left me feeling grief, confusion and heartbreak. I was consumed by feelings of embarrassment and despair. I felt like a fool.

“This sense of violation and disbelief was so intense that I struggled with suicidal thoughts. My entire world fell apart. The emotional toll of this experience has left me with severe anxiety, panic attacks and nightmares. I relive these painful memories each night.

“Without the support of my family and friends, I genuinely believe I wouldn’t be here today. They have been my lifeline. I continue to rely on them every day to cope. Despite their support, I often struggle with feelings of isolation and doubt.

“The thought of seeing [child’s name] in public fills me with dread as I grieve for a child that is no longer in my life. The emotional pain of people asking me about my daughter is unbearable. It brings the grief and sadness back.

“The experience made me doubt whether I could ever be a father. The idea of being told I will become a father again is deeply unsettling. I’m unsure if I will ever be able to handle that situation. The thought of fatherhood now feels like a burden rather than a joy.

“Despite the overwhelming challenges I’ve faced, I’ve found the strength to fight through the justice system to seek the answers that I desperately need. The trauma I’ve experienced is not something I would wish on my worst enemy.”

Fernley has no previous convictions. Thomas Worsfold, defending, told the court: “She has demonstrated that she accepts responsibility for everything that she has done following the end of this relationship. She has demonstrated that she accepts that it was wrong of her, in her own words, to play God.

“It is right to note that, when the offending occurred, she was just 20-years-old. She is before the court, now, as a 26-year-old. There are areas of immaturity and deficiencies in consequential thinking, areas where support can be provided to her.

“She is, aside from this matter, of good character. References speak of the positive elements of her character, a strong work ethic and being a good mother in difficult circumstances.”

Fernley admitted fraud by false representation, having initially filed an application to dismiss the charges which was ultimately not pursued. Appearing in the dock wearing an olive coloured coat over a grey dress, she was seen to wipe a single tear away as she was handed a 13-month imprisonment suspended for 18 months.

Sentencing, the Honorary Recorder of Liverpool Judge Andrew Menary KC said of the charge of fraud: “The label of that offence does not reveal by itself the particularly dreadful nature of the offence you have committed. You initially represented to your partner that he was the father of your unborn child, and when the child arrived he believed that he was the father and did so for a period of two years or more.

“You admitted this offence eventually, but, until that point, you had, in large measure, lied to everybody about all of this. This was a particularly dreadful offence which has had a profound effect on many people, including, most of all, Mr Hampson, but also members of his extended family who believed that they were grandparents, aunties or uncles.

“Your offence has potentially had an effect on your child, because, of course, there will have been a time when she believed that someone else was her father. Whether this began out of some sense of apprehension because you found yourself pregnant with someone who was not your partner or because you were keen to create some sort of perfect family, it is hard for me to understand.

“For no good reason, you set about a course of action involving repeated dishonest and deceit. You knew that Mr Hampson was not the father of your child, yet you set about creating fictitious DNA results pretending that he was the father of the child.

“He, responsibly, stepped up, because he was keen to provide a loving and secure family for [child’s name]. This must have been devastating to him when he discovered that the whole thing was fictitious. When the police became involved, you lied repeatedly. When you came to this court, you lied.

“There is a child in the middle of all of this. You are and remain her mother. She has her own particular challenges which have been identified and will result in continuing struggles for her.

“It is hard to imagine a greater impact on someone than to have someone who they had recognised as their child and had grown to love effectively ripped from him. That is why this is a particularly dreadful offence.

“You could not have complained today if I had sent you immediately to prison. Many people would believe that is what you deserve. Fundamentally, you have principle responsibility for a young child with her own particular challenges. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to send you immediately into custody today, principally for that reason.

“It may well be that, in all other respects, you are a perfectly decent person. But you ought not to ignore the damage that you have caused. You have a good deal of work to do to put things right in the future. I hope that, some day, all of this can be put behind you and the other people who have been affected by this offence.”

Fernley was also told to complete 200 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 10 days. She will be required to pay £300 in compensation.