Jacket Court hears Robinson and Tucker paternity dispute tied to decades-old relationship

A paternity dispute involving Mr Robinson, his mother and Mr Tucker came before Jacket Court after relatives in Jamaica said they recognised Tucker from an earlier episode of the programme. Robinson, who said he had never met his biological father, travelled to Jamaica with his mother to seek answers in a matter the court said had been unresolved for more than 30 years.

The case, introduced as Robinson v Tucker, centred on whether Tucker is Robinson’s biological father. The court noted that in Jamaican usage, a “jacket” refers to a child wrongly attached to a man as the father. Tucker had previously appeared before the court, prompting the presiding judge to remind him that she had hoped not to see him there again.

Miss Robinson told the court she and Tucker met more than 35 years ago when they were young and regularly went dancing. She rejected any suggestion that their involvement was brief, saying it was a relationship that lasted for some time. According to her, when she became pregnant Tucker questioned whether another man was responsible. She said he gave no help after the child was born, and when her son was about 18 months old, her family encouraged her to move to Brooklyn, where she raised him.

Mr Robinson said growing up without his father was difficult, though his mother did well raising him alone. He said he had male role models, but not the actual father-son relationship he wanted. Asked whether he would want a relationship with Tucker if the test confirmed paternity, Robinson said he would, because Tucker would be his father.

Miss Robinson insisted there was no other man while she and Tucker were together. Tucker disputed that, telling the court that a man named George Wilson was also around at the time. He said Miss Robinson had once told him during an argument that the child was not his, while she said that statement was not true and was made because of how he treated her.

Tucker said he was not involved in church life then, describing himself as someone who was partying and enjoying himself. The court also referred to his past, his marriage, and earlier issues raised in his previous appearance, while warning both sides to control their exchanges before the paternity matter could proceed.