S/O: Would you want to know?

[DawnM]

DO NOT QUOTE!

Ok, spin off on Scarlett's thread about DNA.

If you knew a family secret about an aunt who went off to have a baby and never told anyone but your own parents and when your dad got dementia he spilled it out, would you tell the children of that family member?   Or would you keep it to yourself?

Let's give some (fake) names.

Aunt Betty was engaged to Uncle Herald and found out she was pregnant by someone else.   Quite frankly, I am personally questioning if it was consensual or not, but I have no one left to ask that question to.

So Aunt Betty went to stay with her Aunt Gertrude in another state for 6 months.   She had the baby and gave it up for adoption.   She then went back to her state and married Harold and had 2 children, Dick and Jane.

So far, I have kept it to myself, however, several have told me I should tell Dick and Jane.   Aunt Betty has passed away, but Uncle Harold is still alive and it would crush him to know.   Not sure Dick and Jane would be as crushed.

I feel like it isn't my place to tell, however, I also know the other side of it......I would personally want to know.

Oh, and Dick has taken a DNA test so it is entirely possible the mystery child will show up at some point.

 

 

[regentrude]

No, I would not. What good would that accomplish?

It's not even a situation where the parentage of the children you'd be telling is in question or where they could learn any useful medical information. It is none of their business what painful history their mother had if she chose not to share that.

[MEmama]

No.

I just read through the OG article and I'm so stressed out over all of it, like almost panicking. In no scenario can I imagine wanting to be confronted with an unknown relative-- of course if it's 100% mutually agreed upon by both parties I don't care what other people do, but no way would I feel I had the right to violate another person in that way, or be forced into becoming the recipient of unwanted information. 

[gardenmom5]

who are all these people telling you that you should "tell"?

If dick and Jane, or their own children, ever do a DNA test - it will come out.

Have you asked dick or jane if they've ever done any family history?  and if they've ever done any dna testing as they work on it?

even without DNA testing - surprising things come out.

 

Julia Roberts found out - she's not a Roberts.  It had been hidden for several generations - but her Roberts "ancestor" died 10 years before her ancestor was born.  The mother was a widow.  And yeah - they found the father.

[WildflowerMom]

No.

[JennyD]

Absolutely not.   In fact, I think that revealing this information would be a horrendous thing to do.

Betty is entitled to her privacy!  Perhaps if she had known that eventually technology would make it possible for this information to come out, she would have had an abortion instead of having the baby, but she didn't.   And she very clearly did not want her husband or children to know that she had a child and gave it up for adoption.   You have an obligation to respect that.

[ScoutTN]

No, I would not tell. 

Would I want to know, if I were Jane? Maybe. But that is a totally different question that would I tell Jane what I know or suspect.

If people want to know and pursue these sorts of things, they can make use of the large DNA testing companies. And even within that participation, one has choices about sharing data. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by ScoutTN

[kristin0713]

The only way I would tell the children is if the uncle was already gone and somehow I found out that the children were searching for answers. Like they already knew something was up and they wanted more info. Otherwise, no. What good would it do? I would never want to be the one responsible for the uncle finding out info that would devastate him at the end of his life. 

[Pawz4me]

No. MYOB

[regentrude]

5 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

If dick and Jane, or their own children, ever do a DNA test - it will come out.

only if the other child chose to add their dna into a database.

Dick's and jane's parentage are not in question.

Edited February 14, 2023 by regentrude

[Bambam]

No, A similar scenario happened to someone I know. Husband was seriously upset by the news. 
Personally, I think learning stuff like this makes you question all your memories of this person. 
I'm not telling, nor would I want someone to tell me. 
I'm not sure what good comes from knowing. 

[maize]

As the half sibling, yes I would like to know.

I might however prefer not to share the information with my dad.

[maize]

3 minutes ago, regentrude said:

only if the other child chose to add their dna into a database.

Dick's and jane's parentage are not in question.

A ton of adoptees are using DNA databases to track down biofamily, so I think there's a very good chance it will come out.

[vonfirmath]

No. Certainly not until after Uncle Harold was dead and probably not until and unless questions were being asked. IE the other child was found/found Dick and Jane and there was questions where they might come from.  Then, esp if Uncle Harold was dead, I might pipe up with what I knew.

[lauraw4321]

Maybe after Uncle Harold passed away. Not before. 

[gardenmom5]

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

only if the other child chose to add their dna into a database.

Dick's and jane's parentage are not in question.

Yes, someone from both sides must submit DNA.   However - it could be the other child's own children who submit DNA.  and it could be dick and janes maternal cousins.   I've been contacted by a cousin given up for adoption.  The mother had a brain injury at birth.

I've found a doozy of a mess in my own family history (1860s) that while it gave information from DNA testing - also proved it's a bigger mess than i ever could have imagined.

and honestly - as someone who was mistaken as someone's birth mother (I was getting phone calls from the girl several nights in a row, then someone else - all demanding I admit I attended college in Oregon.  I seriously lost patience before they finally believed me that I never lived/attended school of any kind in Oregon.  Actually - I'm not sure if they believed me or not, but they got the message I wasn't going to "admit" to any connection to Oregon.) All because of my name (there is another woman in my area with the same name.  I found out because we went to the same gyn office and they pulled her file instead of mine.  she attended college in oregon.- I looked her up.) . . .  

[Katy]

Yes. Chances are Uncle has always known, it’s just that people didn’t often openly talk about things back then. And why would he be crushed about something that happened before they got together? 

If I were in your shoes I’d find a way to bring up a similar story that happened to a friend and see what they say about a hypothetical. 

[lmrich]

Not your  secret to tell. 

 

[Eos]

A family member wasn't told he was adopted until after his mother died when he was 16.  He decided at about age 30 to search for his birth mother, this was before the internet or the DNA companies.  He enlisted the help of a group of elderly ladies who had maybe been birth mothers themselves way back when and who had formed a very effective personal search agency.  When they found his birth mom, they required him to use the form letter they had developed specifically to avoid unwanted and potentially dangerous scenarios. They wanted to shield birth mothers who might be currently married to or involved with violent or controlling men who might not have known about the birth and adoption so the letter was designed to be able to be understood only by the birth mother.

The letter started like this: "Dear _____, we haven't seen each other since [person's date of birth] and I've wondered how you are doing"  since only the birth mother would know what had happened on that date.  It then went on to ask in a very coded and discreet way whether any contact would be desired.  

Family member went on to meet her and her husband and three full siblings.  She had become pregnant before marriage in a devout family and they weren't allowed to get married by either of their parents though did get married after.  She was thrilled to be contacted, but watching that scenario unfold (I went with family member to meet the family for the first time) made me think about whether this contact out of the blue is always safe or desirable.

Answer to the OP's question: not my secret to tell, for the above reason.  Uncle Harold might be "crushed" but someone else like Dick might have other reactions.  

Edited February 14, 2023 by Eos

[Anne Elliot]

Nope. And this actually happened to me. My grandmother and aunt “accidentally “ told me about a potential half sibling. I don’t appreciate the knowledge. But at least I know not to use the Ancestry dna service. So that’s something, I guess. 

[livetoread]

I would not tell in the given scenario.

If I was the half sibling, I would respond if contacted, but I wouldn't care about pursuing it myself. If I have unknown relatives out there, I don't really care about meeting them, but I would if they wanted to. I have never submitted any DNA and never will. 

[prairiewindmomma]

Nope, it’s not my secret to tell. 

[theelfqueen]

I'm in the Not Your Secret To Tell camp.

 

[Spryte]

No.

[El...]

So, a woman made a choice about her own reproduction, made the best choice she could under whatever circumstances life handed her, and we're deciding whether to "out" her, posthumously, for her choice. I say no. I'm inclined to trust that she made the best choice she could. Violating her privacy would be inappropriate. 

If her child finds out their information, it belongs to them. But it's certainly not our business. It seems like such entitled judgement to tell someone's life story without her consent!

[Halftime Hope]

This isn't the first time I've posted this, but I hate that we can meddle around with technology and uncover people's secrets without their being able to protect themselves from the revelations. I feel strongly about this because there is an adoption in my family, and my side of the family is doing all we can to protect the birthmother from being "found" by subsequent offspring of the man who assaulted her. The adoptee is perfectly settled and has no desire to connect with anyone else, even after the birthmother is deceased. That means the adoptee's children and grandchildren will always have to be diligent not to use DNA testing services.

It's not the OP's secret to tell, and although her dear dad was not of sound mind when it slipped, it wasn't his to tell either.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Halftime Hope

[Catwoman]

I wouldn’t tell, either, but I feel sorry for you@DawnM because I’m sure you wish your dad wouldn’t have given you the information. 

One thing, though — since Dad had dementia, are you 100% sure the story is accurate?

Edited February 14, 2023 by Catwoman
Because “wish” is not spelled “wishe.” Thanks for nothing, autocorrect!

[klmama]

I would absolutely not tell them.  It's not fair to Uncle Harold, who you say would be crushed by the information.  Why do that to the poor man?  Dick may find out through his DNA test at some point and tell his sister.  That's enough.  

Edited February 14, 2023 by klmama

[gardenmom5]

Just regular adoptees, or birth moms - If they want privacy, that is their right.

 

I fully support the use of DNA databanks to catch killers, or rapists. e.g. golden state killer, karen klaas killer,   they forfeited the right to privacy when they committed their crime.

[Lady Florida.]

If I was the child given up for adoption I'd want to know. If I was Jane I'd want to know. 

 

That said, I agree that it's not your place to tell, at least while Uncle Harold is alive. 

[SKL]

I would only want to know if my mom wanted to tell me.

It is quite possible that Uncle Herald does know.  I mean, his fiance went away for 6 months; he'd want to know what she was doing; and also, I am ignorant, but wouldn't he notice if the person he married had recently given birth?  But maybe he doesn't know.  Or doesn't want to know....

There's also a slight possibility that the person with dementia didn't get it right.  What if he was actually talking about someone else or a dream he had or a book he read?

I have suspicions about the parentage of a close family member, but I am not going to say anything.  That's between the members directly involved, and maybe they have already discussed it, but it's none of my business.

[SKL]

I do think it's sad and scary that DNA is now able to uncover dark secrets that are best kept hidden, but that's not the DNA companies' fault, nor the fault of their clients.  I guess the way to deal with this is to tell kids who they really are as soon as they are old enough to understand.  And obviously we're long past the days when hiding a pregnancy could work.  But fortunately, we have many other, better ways to prevent/postpone parenthood.

[Pam in CT]

If I were in your shoes, the correct question **for my own conduct** would not be the one you posed as the thread title.

For me, the correct question that would frame **the ethics of my own conduct** would be "is this my story to tell."

 

 

All kinds of folks are interested in all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons, some of them excellent (ie one's own medical history information or one's own origin story) and others merely prurient.  But the interest that third parties may have, or the "legitimacy" or less-so of that interest, would not (for me) supersede the basic ethical issue of, is this my story to tell.

 

[madteaparty]

No.

[gardenmom5]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I have suspicions about the parentage of a close family member, but I am not going to say anything.  That's between the members directly involved, and maybe they have already discussed it, but it's none of my business.

no - it isn't your business.

I don't know why - but the father of dh's nephew-in-law was convinced nephew wasn't his son.  That his wife had cheated, and he was fathered by her alleged lover.  His "evidence" was because he looked so different to the rest of their sons.  Eventually they did do DNA testing (for other reasons) - and dh's nephew was proven to have been fathered by his father/mother's husband.  The father only believed it when the results came back. It was really hurtful to the son.

[KSera]

45 minutes ago, SKL said:

I am ignorant, but wouldn't he notice if the person he married had recently given birth? 

If she was gone until after recovery and her milk drying up? I can't see why he would. I'm assuming they didn't marry in the weeks immediately after she gave birth.

[amyx4]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

This isn't the first time I've posted this, but I hate that we can meddle around with technology and uncover people's secrets without their being able to protect themselves from the revelations. I feel strongly about this because there is an adoption in my family, and my side of the family is doing all we can to protect the birthmother from being "found" by subsequent offspring of the man who assaulted her. The adoptee is perfectly settled and has no desire to connect with anyone else, even after the birthmother is deceased. That means the adoptee's children and grandchildren will always have to be diligent not to use DNA testing services.

It's not the OP's secret to tell, and although her dear dad was not of sound mind when it slipped, it wasn't his to tell either.

I'm sure you probably know this but states have different policies around the "sealed birth certificate." She may be found just by old fashioned paperwork and not DNA databases.

In my family the name of the birth mother was located using just state records and then an internet search added more information. No DNA or facebook involved.

Edited February 14, 2023 by amyx4

[73349]

My first thought is that the source may be unreliable.

I would want to know about siblings. My family is already a whole ecosystem, though.

Edited February 20, 2023 by 73349

[City Mouse]

I agree that I would not trust the reliability of a person with dementia. My dad tells all kinds of wild stories which may have a small bit of truth in them, but are not fully accurate. Other stories are completely fiction.

 

[Janeway]

No I would not. That is someone else’s business and someone else’s story so none of my business. I don’t like gossip or meddling.

[Kanin]

I think I would want to know, if it were me.... but you never know. Perhaps you'd learn something and feel pretty bad about it.

If it's not my secret to tell, I wouldn't, even if I was tempted.

[Kanin]

3 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

This isn't the first time I've posted this, but I hate that we can meddle around with technology and uncover people's secrets without their being able to protect themselves from the revelations.

I never thought of that, but yes, that's pretty disturbing. Doing genealogy you can uncover secrets, too, but it's much harder and DNA gives you information like.. poof. You know it all now. Eek. 

[Halftime Hope]

2 hours ago, amyx4 said:

I'm sure you probably know this but states have different policies around the "sealed birth certificate." She may be found just by old fashioned paperwork and not DNA databases.

In my family the name of the birth mother was located using just state records and then an internet search added more information. No DNA or facebook involved.

You have misunderstood the details.

[rebcoola]

No I don't think this is your info to share.

[Corraleno]

Agreeing with everyone else that it's not your story to tell. And to me it wouldn't matter even if I believed that Dick and Jane would be happy about it, because I would not want them to go looking for the adopted half-sibling without knowing that the adoptee also wanted that information — especially if there is a good chance that the pregnancy resulted from an assault. Presumably if the adopted child decides to look for biological relatives, they will join Ancestry and will be the one to reach out. The only circumstances under which I would disclose what I knew would be if (1) Uncle Harold was deceased and (2) the adoptee was the one seeking the info. 

[Emba]

I might want to know, but if it was my elderly father I wouldn’t want him to be crushed by the news either. I think, especially given that the source of your information could have been unreliable, that it would be better not to say anything. After the uncle dies, I might re-evaluate. It is for sure an unfortunate secret to be in possession of.

[QueenCat]

This is definitely NOT  your story to tell. 

[Melissa Louise]

No, not my story etc

[mommyoffive]

I am glad a few people brought up the fact that your dad wasn't the best source when he had dementia.  Very good point.

 

No I would not tell.  Not your secret to spill. 

And I wouldn't ever want to know something like that.  Especially if my parent hadn't told me.

[kbutton]

I would want to know if I were Dick and Jane.

 I wouldn't tell Uncle Harold at the end of his life.

I would also seriously consider asking the people involved some kind of question to probe if they would want to know--because you've found people via DNA, it would be an easy hypothetical to have without raising suspicion.  

4 hours ago, Eos said:

A family member wasn't told he was adopted until after his mother died when he was 16.  He decided at about age 30 to search for his birth mother, this was before the internet or the DNA companies.  He enlisted the help of a group of elderly ladies who had maybe been birth mothers themselves way back when and who had formed a very effective personal search agency.  When they found his birth mom, they required him to use the form letter they had developed specifically to avoid unwanted and potentially dangerous scenarios. They wanted to shield birth mothers who might be currently married to or involved with violent or controlling men who might not have known about the birth and adoption so the letter was designed to be able to be understood only by the birth mother.

The letter started like this: "Dear _____, we haven't seen each other since [person's date of birth] and I've wondered how you are doing"  since only the birth mother would know what had happened on that date.  It then went on to ask in a very coded and discreet way whether any contact would be desired.  

I think this is an excellent way to approach something like that. Bravo to them for their tact and safety considerations!

4 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

This isn't the first time I've posted this, but I hate that we can meddle around with technology and uncover people's secrets without their being able to protect themselves from the revelations. I feel strongly about this because there is an adoption in my family, and my side of the family is doing all we can to protect the birthmother from being "found" by subsequent offspring of the man who assaulted her. The adoptee is perfectly settled and has no desire to connect with anyone else, even after the birthmother is deceased. That means the adoptee's children and grandchildren will always have to be diligent not to use DNA testing services.

This sounds like a situation in which the family has an open secret, meaning that the parties involved aren't being lied to. Only the children of the rapist would be the ones not in the know, and to me, that's just a natural consequence of life being messy.

I also think this is a much more cut and dry scenario than 99% of what is being discussed here, and that the paper trail involved in those other cases is often robust enough to spill the beans with or without DNA. There are so many scenarios in my extended family that involve zero DNA that I really can't justify demonizing DNA testing at all. It's one of many ways people find out shocking things. Just one.