The Ethicist- Secret History

I didn’t find out for years, but I fathered a child with a woman in my neighborhood who was, and still is, married to another man. The girl does not know about any of this. Neither does the husband. At the mother’s request, I have had nothing to do with the girl, though I offered to tutor her. Does she have a right to know her true parentage upon reaching adulthood? Sooner? Over the objection of the mother? Only when the husband dies? Who can make these decisions and when? NAME WITHHELD, NEW YORK

That is a complex problem, but it hardly begins with the questions you pose. The full picture starts way back with your sexual encounter and the deception it entailed, the circumstances that led to the pregnancy, the absence of a solid agreement about your role (or lack of one) in the girl’s life, the choice to let the husband think the child was his and so on. Telling the girl, or not, is merely one step on a long and fairly muddy road.

To Adam Pertman, a leading advocate for openness in adoption and the author of “Adoption Nation,” cases like this are open and shut. “We assume, and rightly so,” he told me, “that the right to know who you are and where we come from is basic and core.”

I don’t assume that. Informing someone is a choice with consequences, and in this case the consequences could be devastating — especially to the girl, whose entire family could come apart as a result. Then again, it could be a godsend. It might explain the dreadful silences that too long plagued her family. And it might give her access to another caring presence in the world: you.

But you have no way to guess which outcome is more likely. And you have no standing to decide whether she would be better off being shielded from this knowledge or subjected to it. In most cases, only a parent responsible for rearing a child is qualified to make this decision; overruling the mother and informing the girl yourself (in effect, jumping out of the bushes and yelling: “Surprise! You were created from my sperm!”) should be out of the question. Even when the girl becomes an adult, an out-of-the-blue, unilateral disclosure would still be the most destructive approach. If you feel strongly that the girl should know, talk to her mother and try to reach a consensus — a consensus that would eventually, if painfully, have to include the woman’s husband as well.

Abstract appeals to truth don’t amount to much in this case, since there is more than one truth at play: the genetic truth, in which you and the girl are as close as any parent and child; and the emotional truth, in which her mother’s husband is her father, and you’re just some guy staring at her from across the street. In the end, the most viable argument for telling the girl might just be the most practical: so she could have an accurate family medical history, past and continuing.I wouldn’t be the first to say that a lie is a poor foundation on which to build a family (or anything else, for that matter). But blurting out some truths may obscure others. If you pursue this, just make sure you are acting on the girl’s need to know, not your need to tell.

This article deals with the issue of whether a child has the right to know where they came from and who their biological parents are if their parent has decided not to give them this information. It is a problem that, at first, hardly seems uncommon, especially given its portrayal in movie and television adaptations (I feel like it almost has an essence of cliché to it). Nonetheless, perhaps the reason that this situation has been so largely reproduced in different medias is because of its innate complexity, and, as the unnamed man from New York asks, who can make the decisions in this scenario, and when? The piece ties together a conflict of both ethical and moral responsibilities: is it unethical to keep someone’s true identity hidden from them? Is it immoral to tell the truth when it could result in the destruction of a family unit? To what extent does the man have the right, as a father, to be a part of the child’s life despite what it could do to her current family dynamic?

The Ethicist notes that more information about what was agreed between the anonymous commenter and the mother of his child is needed for him to see what is the right thing to do, but, ultimately, it is best not to do anything. He says that the only instance in which it would be appropriate to tell the girl is if she needed to know in the interest of practicality, not for the sake of her own sense of identity. The Ethicist seems strongly against the notion that “the right to know who you are and where we come from is basic and core,” as is said by Adam Pertman, and thus completely disregards this side of the argument. He seems to evaluate the situation with an eye of practicality, and does not look at the emotional aspects that it also holds as something that should be considered. In my opinion, I think this is a very important part of the problem and, while the overall practicality of the situation is very important as it could potentially change the lives of everyone involved, it is also notable that the anonymous commenter has some rights as the father of the girl, and could feel an emotional connection to her. This brings forth another question: where do his rights as a father begin and where do they end? Does his biological connection to the girl mean less than the marital status of the man married to her mother, or does it mean anything at all? And, who has the right to make this decision? In the opinion of The Ethicist, the mother has every right to decide what is best for the child, because she is the one who was “responsible for rearing [her],” which I agree with, but I don’t think the side of the father should be completely discredited. Since there are two different sides to the story, and in order to come to a more clear consensus in this situation, we would need a lot more information about the boundaries that had been set between the man and the mother of the girl. Then, we would be able to see not only what the father wants, but if it would be approved by the mother, who played a monumentally larger role in bringing up the girl. 

Another question that The Ethicist does not bring to light are the ethical implications of the father tutoring the girl even when they are technically not meant to be in contact. The anonymous man says that the mother has requested he have nothing to do with her, yet he has still taken this opportunity, seemingly against her will. Firstly, it is important that he do what the mother has requested of him, especially because she is the one who has been responsible for the girl since her birth. Also, tutoring the girl, and, I assume, meeting with her frequently could potentially result in a bond forming between them, which would not only difficult a future reveal of her identity, but also make it much harder for the father to deal with the situation overall. Furthermore, The Ethicist also brings up the question of age; would it be appropriate to tell the girl when she reaches adulthood? This could result in many issues, perhaps even more than telling her when she is still young. If she becomes aware that her entire life had been spent without knowing who she was, it could result in an identity crisis, and an ensuing distancing from both her mother and her father. It could also create an immense conflict between the mother and her husband, which could potentially never be resolved. In my opinion, the age of the girl has little to do with when it could be appropriate to tell her, and it would not be better if she were told in adulthood, if not much worse.   

Ultimately, The Ethicist brings forward a conclusion that I agree with: there is no way of knowing whether telling the girl the truth would benefit her or ruin her life, and it is therefore wiser to keep quiet about it overall. Before acting drastically, it would be necessary to have a conversation with the mother, for she is the one who has more authority over what happens to the girl and the family they have created. I think that while the father has some sort of right to have a connection with his daughter, the decision is ultimately up to her mother, and the importance of a functional family is perhaps more important than this feigned father-daughter relationship. Thus, I agree wholly with The Ethicist’s final statement: he must act on the girl’s need to know, not his own need to tell. The most important individual in the situation is, ultimately, the girl in question, and all actions must be taken with her best interest in mind.