Considering the arrangement the mother of the minor children has with their father, why in the world did she put their DNA out there to be found by anybody? I'd be pretty annoyed if I was the father. Something is odd about that whole thing to begin with. Why would anybody put their children's DNA out to the public for any reason?
137
This is kind of unbelievable. A sperm donor is not a parent in any meaningful sense.
72
Frankly, this is inconsistent with some other responses by the ethicist. He has argued here that a sperm donor does not a parent make, and I think we would all agree with that. But I've also seen this column push for reunited adopted children with their biological parents. If the son had given children up for adoption, would we still say the writer should leave them alone? Why do we consider the biological parents of adopted children differently than sperm or egg donors? That makes zero sense.
29
Secrets rarely keep secret over generations for all sorts of reasons - not the least of which is medical treatment and precedent.
People should realize that keeping confidences is always conditional. For health and safety reasons, nothing is secret. For example, a multiple murder criminal in California was recently apprehended after a 30 year period of criminal inactivity through Ancestry.com. This is only the beginning of knowing everyone's DNA and who is related to whom. So the idea of donating sperm anonymously is just a myth - eventually, sooner or later, it will be done. You can ask that the information be withheld for some period of time, but eventually, the facts will emerge. This is going to become so common that it's as well known as old addresses, family trees, and blood types.
17
Genetics in common do not make a family. I think the 'grandparents' have already stepped way out of line in their sleuthing and communications and focus on the family they actually have.
109
I can sympathize with adoptive parents who would like to preserve the appearance of what they view as the only "legitimate" family--one created with your own biology, but this is ultimately wrong. They should feel confident that they will be the "real" and only parents these children have. As an adult who was adopted as an infant, it took 60 years to locate my biological family, which was also through DNA. I'm sure you've heard this already, but having this information (which others take very much for granted) withheld from you is devastating. My parents never hid from me that I was adopted, but they had no identifying information about my biological mother. I'm very glad that my biological mother is still alive and well--and was very happy that we were able to connect. She in no way takes the place of the parents who raised me, she just completes the picture that is me. When children are old enough to understand and process information, they should be told how they came to be born. Two adults (donor and mother) have no right to make any promises on behalf of other adults (those children who will grow up and have the same rights as any other citizen). This is a difficult situation for the grandfather and father donor, and will take time to sort out, but I sincerely hope the donor comes to the realization that the children will grow up and find out eventually, whether he wants them to or not.
50
This is my concern about these essentially DIY DNA tests: unintended results and moral and ethical quandaries, and another means to invade another’s privacy.
Grandpa should just drop this.
58
Here’s a question : will these biological offspring inherit from you? Will you add them to your will without first meeting them? Or is their inclusion predicated on whether or not you approve of them? Think about that before you make a rash and self-centered decision.
38
It doesn’t sound like the author has an understanding of adoption in today’s world and is making an inaccurate and outdated claim when stating “If we want adoptions to occur, it’s unwise to burden adoptive families with all these obligations”. The vast majority of domestic infant adoptions are open, meaning the Birthparents are known to the family. Whatever relationship those relatives choose to have is a mutual decision, and one made with the best interests of the child in the center. Adoptive parents must have the best interest of the child foremost in their thoughts, and often this means having more people to love in their child’s life - this is a wonderful thing, not an “obligation”. This is done because we know the importance of accurate medical history as well as the damaging role of secrecy for everyone involved. There is no reason for birth family to feel shame or guilt or an adoptee to wonder where he or she came from and with DNA, these brick walls from the past are being torn down.
20
The vast majority of adoptions are open? Do you know this for a fact or are you wishful thinking? Even in an open adoption the adoptive parents can often change their minds and move or otherwise deny the biological parents the contact they desire. The nature of adoption is that biological parents give up their parental rights, no matter what pleasant name you give it.
31
According to a 2012 study by the Donaldson Adoption Institute, only 5% of current adoptions are fully closed, 40% are mediated and 55% are open. True, the definition of "open" varies, and adoptive parents hold legal parental rights.
I support Traci's point here that what should be foremost are the best interests of the child, not the convenience or preference of the parents, by adoption or birth.
21
The kids at the very least should have the right to know who their biological relatives are. Secondary to that, other relatives such as grandparents should at least have the right to reach out to the families of such kids to make themselves known, and, when the kids are adults, to reach out to them directly. Then it's up to the individuals to decide if they would like to have a relationship. That disproven argument, that children of donor parents wouldn't exist without the current american system is just that: disproven. There are many jurisdictions outside of the US where donor children have the right to know who there parents are and there are still plenty of donor children being conceived.
8
Is this the new American Family? These children know nothing about you....or their natural father. The sudden knowledge of your existence would be both confusing and hurtful. DO NOT CONTACT THEM.
46
Another commenter noted that the children’s DNA was tested and results posted, which would be against the policies of Ancestry. Actually, one must be 18 or a legal guardian can give permission for the child’s DNA to be tested. Why would the mother do this, knowing that the identity of the children’s father, or his relatives, would be revealed? And vice-versa? She could have done her own DNA test for her side, and asked the donor to do his for his side if all she was interested in is obtaining the ethnic/geographic results.
21
This would make a great movie plot.
11
My dad has a congenital heart issue. His doctor recommended his children and grandchildren immediately have an echocardiogram to see if they inherited it and the grandkids again when they reach their mid twenties. (Dad is 85 and doing well, the rest of us are clear. Thanks for asking.) What if Dad has any other children, no matter how they were conceived? They should be told, but how? I have no answer, which apparently makes me a minority in this group.
And to those of you who are certain that the ethicist is wrong, under what authority do you claim that your opinion is The Correct One? "It worked out in my case." isn't enough, I'm afraid.
12
When the children turn 18 or likely earlier they will find him anyway.
It was their Mother who blew the cover by getting DNA tests--on children below the age of consent!
That is the real ethical problem. Who does that and WHY?
34
These are not your grandchildren. The state of being a grandchild/grandparent is a personal relationship not a biological connection. Your son was a sperm donor. You come across as incredibly controlling and intrusive. Spend your time interacting with the people in your family...the ones you are connected to through a relationship not biology.
49
Why should grandchildren and their grandfather be prevented from knowing one another?
18
Gee, judgmental much? The person asking the question seemed quite sensitive to the difficulty of the situation, thus the query to the ethicist. Besides, considering that he/she is very interested in family connections (otherwise, why the DNA test?), it makes sense he/she would be curious.
Give the human being a break.
27
Because the sperm donor wished that his arrangement with the mother remain confidential. The children are no more this person’s grandchildren than they would be had they been adopted.
32
Regarding the second letter, a person relaxing on weekends with a little booze and weed may seem abnormal to a non-drinker non-smoker, but completely normal to almost anyone else. A person with a serious problem needs help.
Are you qualified to assess his mental health?
But your concern doesn’t seem to be about him, your issue is for your children. Your focus you.
That puts you into question too.
You breezed over the “we share a house...” part.
Who’s house is it anyway? You don’t say. You also don’t clearly define the familial relationships.
As a family elder it is easy to envision a scenario whereby the house is more “his” than yours. For instance, it was your grandparents and they left to their children - your uncle, his siblings - do they use the house too? What do they say? Are you are just tagging along?
If he has more of a legitimate legal ownership stake in the house get your own weekend house.
Let’s go ahead guess that solution doesn’t suit you. It is about you, after all.
If your claim is as legitimate as his you can consider sharing. You don’t have to go on the same weekends he is there, right?
Similarly, if you do have joint ownership you can have him buy you out of your share or you can buy his.
If you have a stronger claim confront him. If you have to, kick him out.
You can also wait until your kids are older before you expose them to the uncle. It doesn’t sound as though you are willing to compromise when it’s all about you.
4
@Johannes de Silentio
The issue is the children. It's not the house, it's not the room, it's not the parents. It's the poor example this uncle is setting for the kids. The parents clearly don't want their children to think the Uncle's behavior is healthy or worthy of emulating. Even if the uncle is not a complete addict there are plenty of ways for the uncle to demonstrate unhealthy behavior and poor judgement, and parents accepting this behavior can show kids that it is OK to shirk your personal responsibility to yourself.
21
"As long as you’re confident about your assessment of his situation..."
The columnist seems too willing to agree that addiction is involved. This could just be the letter writer's judgment, people are often quick to judge other people's use of alcohol and drugs. They could instead discuss it OBJECTIVELY with their children (that there is use involved, not necessarily abuse or addiction).
But far be it for me to tell an "ethicist" to not be judgmental.
10
I'm Jewish and my experience with people finding out that they are biologically related to someone who they didn't know they were related to has always been "more mishpacha! Cool!" When two Jews meet for the first time, they often engage in "Jewish genealogy" or "Jewish geography" where they try to figure out where there are biological or location based connections. as an example, that was the way that the wife of a well-known Northern NJ editorial cartoonist and I found out we were very distant cousins when we met at a cartooning convention. And DNA testing has increased the opportunities to find more family members too.
There are health reasons to connect with family members Knowing ones genetic history (especially when biological siblings/parents/aunts and uncles/grandparents are involved) is important for those of us with heredity diseases or risk factors.
I find it sad that grandparents who want to be involved in their grandparents lives aren't at least given the opportunity to be vetted (I can understand wanting to verify biological connection and to see what kind of people the are, especially to their other children and grandchildren) and then to be brought into the family web. Finding another branch of what will be a loving family and then keeping it away seems so sad and foolish. Maybe losing six million of our mishpacha has made us realize how important it is to know and connect with those who are still with us, even three generations later.
34
A lovely comment.
It offsets some of the cruel and (imho) inhumane comments by people who think the grandfather and his grandchildren should be kept apart.
16
@Pecan
I don't see anyone saying they should be kept apart. The question is should the (bio) grandfather announce himself? That is a very different scenario than if the children themselves seek him out at some point. You are very concerned with the childrens' rights, so I'm sure you can see the difference. One gives the children CONTROL, in the other scenario a relationship is imposed on them.
10
(Not sure what you're trying to say.)
I don't see in the letter anything about the ages of the grandchildren.
Nor, on the DNA websites, do I see anything about relationships being "imposed" on anyone.
I'll just recommend (once again) that you and others who disapprove of DNA/genealogy/family history visit the websites and see how they actually work.
Ancestry.com , e.g., offers a free two-week introduction, time enough to start a family tree and discover some relatives and ancestors that you might like.
Good luck.
3
Coming from a family where adoptions are part of my history I question the underlying assumption of the ethicist that secrecy or anonymity should always be respected. Many adoptive families are open about how their family was created. But some adoptive families negate the biological parents completely, insisting that the adopting parent is the only "real" parent of their children. This just isn't true. The adopting parent is the real parent, just not the only parent.
I understand the pain involved with not being able to conceive, but it isn't healthy or ethical to pretend that adopting a child is exactly the same as giving birth to a baby. Just because it's a different process doesn't mean that it's any less - it's just different. Demanding anonymity, or insisting that you're the only parent of your adopted or donor conceived child doesn't really do you or your child any good.
My grandparents were my grandparents. I love them with all my heart. When I learned, at age 11, that I had another living grandfather, it was a tremendous gift. I loved him too, although I've always mourned the fact that I was only allowed to know him for 6 short years and that he wasn't allowed to influence my life. We shared many similarities and his influence would have been a very positive influence.
I learned as a teen that my mother had been adopted by family members and that I'd been denied the opportunity to know my birth grandparents while they were alive.
20
@Todd Fox Obviously your mother didn't consider that those 'birth grandparents' were an important part of her life or you would have grown up with them being a part of yours.
You assume that all biological parents WANT to be part of of their offspring's lives. They don't. Sometimes it's just a DNA donation.. literally or figuratively.
10
Once again the new ethics is not just disappointing or wrong, but harmful. My daughter is the product of donor insemination at a lab that has since be cited by NY State Dept of health for poor record keeping. In order to find out her true medical history I pursued four different dna tests and was able to find the donor number, and because he had made his contact info available, to find him and his family. The advice given here prevents the mother and children from pursuing a relationship with willing grandparents. The father made an agreement that suits him and the mother. But the grandparents and children made not such agreement. If this grandfather is happy to meet his grandkids, and the Children are interested, they should enjoy the time they have. I wish my child’s grandparents discovered my wonderful daughter the same way. I know her relationship with her donor dad has enriched her life. The law and psych studies back this up. Maybe Kwame you could do so research before you drag out tropes from the 1950’s upon which to base your tired responses.
23
@M E R
This and other responses point up the lack of research of the most current sources that go into this column and the lack of consultation with experts in the field. A quick conversation with an attorney in family law and a social worker or researcher specializing in the fields of adoption and assisted fertility would have contributed to a more robust discussion.
11
@M E R It would not make sense for a donation or adoption to go forward if every possible genetic relative had to sign off on the agreement. I have friends who sold their eggs to help pay for college expenses - their agreements stipulated that there was to be no further contact, which is what both parties wanted.
10
Another aspect of this ( though mundane in the light of this article) are the “legal” ramifications of acknowledging a “biological link” even though theee was no actual relationship.
For example: if a biological grandchild finds a biological grandparent and a sperm donor only parent might that biological grandchild claim inheritance rights when the time came?
Again, I know this is off the subject of the article but it is all part of the consideration!
8
@SAH I guess anyone could contest a will. There are certainly plenty of cases where 'legitimate' children who have been left out of a will have done so. There are cases where mistresses have made claims and where other family members have put their hands up for a share of the spoils. Are you saying that it might be wise to reject donor conceived offspring on the basis that it might financially disadvantaged legitimate offspring? Maybe so, but I am sure the lawyers will have that covered. This discussion is about ethics, values and our responsibilities in relation to our biological family.
5
Peoples' sense of entitlement will never cease to amaze me. Just because you are genetically connected to someone doesn't mean you have any right to know them or be in their lives. I can't image anything less appealling at 56yo than having someone show up at my door claiming to be a long lost cousin, aunt, niece, etc. We share 99%+ of our DNA with chimpanzees but I don't invite them to family reunions. either.
86
@Todd
This is how I feel as well. There's lots of interesting people one might meet, but the fact that one has a bit of DNA in common doesn't in any way suggest I want or need to meet this person. I am just as likely to have something - anything - in common with people I'm NOT biologically related to - in fact, more so, my experience suggests.
However, I recognize that others feel differently, and knowing they are biologically related to someone feels important.
16
@Todd
A few years ago, already in my 60s, I unexpectedly discovered a bunch of cousins whom I had no idea existed. Much to my surprise, I'm very grateful that they've become part of my life.
It's not that we've become close. But we do have cordial intercontinental relationships, I've hung out with a couple of them in person, and I've learned a lot about my family history from them.
27
@Todd
" We share 99%+ of our DNA with chimpanzees but I don't invite them to family reunions. either. " Excluding concerns about family medical history for IVF children, this quote summarizes family connections brilliantly. In fact, your entire commentary sums up my feelings as well.
14
With some of the vehement comments that donor privacy is wrong and totally trumped by the interest of the children thus created, one wonders why anyone would now want to donate sperm or egg if they have any hope of future privacy. And that is a shame for that route is sometimes the only way people may have children.
I also think we grant too much import to the terms father and mother when they are donors only and never had any hand in raising the ensuing offspring. It often callously diminishes the real world parenting, love and sacrifice of the "fake" parents.
23
@George S
The son doesn’t want contact. The kids’ mom doesn’t appear to want contact...let it go for now. The son did a lovely thing for someone, and the door is open if/when the time is right.
As for the other, just talk to the kids about alcohol/drug use in an age appropriate way and don’t worry about the “why” unless you are sure it’s addiction. The reasons behind the self-medicating (if that is correct) don’t really matter, do they?
8
“According to these legal contracts, you still own your DNA, but so does Ancestry.com. The family history website Ancestry.com is selling a new DNA testing service called AncestryDNA. But the DNA and genetic data that Ancestry.com collects may be used against “you or a genetic relative.”
Yessiree. THEY own your DNA and can do with it what they will. Why would anyone submit their very make up to a company under those circumstances!!
18
@SAH You submit your DNA with every shed hair and used straw. You submit your very make up to the environment every day! Do you ever have blood drawn or have you ever given a urine sample for any reason? Do you use public toilets? Why would you ever do that?!
5
@boggypeak
Oh, don't be silly. When you flush, or when the waitress clears away your plate with your used straw on it, your DNA is gone then, unidentifiable. This is nothing remotely like uploading it to the internet with your name attached, or submitting a specimen for medical purposes. The only legitimate reason anyone has for "collecting" my DNA in any other way is a criminal investigation. Otherwise we fully expect our DNA to flow anonymously into the mass of the DNA of the rest of the billions of people on the planet when we shed hair, skin etc.
7
I can't help but highly suspect the uncle is just doing what we child-free all do on vacation... indulge. The sanctimonious assumptions from the writer are exactly why I hate hanging out with my friends with children. Everything becomes a serious life lesson instead of a chance to enjoy beers and a toke at the cabin. Did the writer ever think the uncle is ok under normal circumstances but entering a vacation property with the chaos of children and family he's playing up his role as an out (as in, get out around the back, and away from you?) I'm sure all of us at one point or another have come across as the dippy friend (when really we pretended to forget the date of something we didn't want to go to) or the one with the 'always tired' spouse (when we cancel an event and blame our partner) when really it's just us living up to the family dynamics to get out of something - like your kids driving us child-free insane.
24
@Janine Yes, and I am happy to be a "good" bad example--my brother was far far worse before marriage, kids yet he and his wife act like I am the one who had EtOH related arrests--Not, was him.
3
This is a classic reason I refuse to use one of these DNA sites. They spread your DNA information around and it is not private, no matter what instructions you give them. Sure, I’d like to find out more about my genetic make up but not at the risk of everyone else having access to my DNA information. Once the companies have it, you’ve lost control of it, no matter what their privacy policy says!!
15
@SAH Untrue. You can actually delete the entire profile once you have the information you want it you so desire, or you can specifically state that you are open to being contacted by relatives. If the grandfather found the grandchildren's DNA, it is because their profile was made public. But the point is, it doesn't really matter what you personally do. If, for example, your brother or for that matter your cousin, makes his DNA profile public, then anyone will know their relatedness to you, as well. And the fact that you exist can easily be determined on an ancestry website just by searching the records.
3
https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2017/05/21/setting-the-record-straig...
That link will answer your questions.
If you need more information, copy the paragraph from your later comment (for which you provided no citation) and paste it in the search box on Google.
1
@SAH You have to explicitly consent to make yourself visible to relatives. You can choose to not share.
2
LW 2: Talk to the kids all you want but keep them away from the addict. Addiction is not something that only happens to the addict. It affects everybody around them. If the addict doesn't "think" they have a problem, refuses help or refuses to stop their troublesome behavior while around your kids, which very likely will do, stay sway as there is nothing you can do to help if the addict doesn't want it and your first priority is to protect your children's emotional, psychological and physical health. You can talk to your kids as much as you want but they are observing the addict and his actions will have an effect on them. Not to mention, smoking plus alcohol, a very sure way to set a house on fire. Your kids will enjoy more a vacation in the backyard without the tension the presence of an addict creates in any social situation, especially if his family is in denial and nobody else will do or say anything than a fancy summer house if you can't afford one by yourself where you can determine the addict is not welcomed. I was you when my kids were little. Family gatherings were tense, uncomfortable and not enjoyable because of the in-law drunk who everybody pretended was not. That person was not welcomed at any gathering in my house which my other in-laws really appreciated but looking back I wished I had had the spine to keep my kids away from other gatherings as every memory from those gatherings they have now is tainted by the addicts presence and actions.
11
Right to know? Wrong to know? Does not matter much.
Technology marches on. Participating in life based on traditional anonymity is ending. Two parties may agree to keep their activities quiet, but the world knows and everyone else including children and grandchildren can find out if they want.
11
With regard to the uncle with a possible drinking/drug problem, the issue is clear when considered from a safety standpoint. The issue should be discussed with all of the children in a kind and honest way - and they must be given clear limitations regarding interactions with the uncle. First and foremost, never get in a car with him behind the wheel.
10
Speaking as a donor conceived person, I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to know my biological father and to have had a close relationship with him before he died. To have been ignored or rejected would have been devastating and psychologically damaging. I feel the same about other members of the extended paternal family, some of whom have been more welcoming than others. It meant everything to me when one of my paternal first cousins added my family and the families of my identified donor siblings to the family tree on Ancestry.com together with photos and identifying information. I also have a large and much loved maternal family who are generally interested and supportive of my efforts to establish these relationships. I would ignore the advice of the ethicist who doesn’t appear to have considered the responsibilities of the biological parents as opposed to focusing on their ‘rights’. Children and adults can’t have too many people who love and care about them.
32
Oh, for heaven's sake. A sperm donor does not a father make.
Grandpa should get over himself and devote time and energy to the grandchildren he has publicly. If anyone had wanted him to know about this, they would have told him. This is NOT about you, Grandpa.
39
@Leslie Durr I am a donor conceived adult. I am a mother and a grandmother. I would very much like to have positive relationships with all of my extended family members, both maternal and paternal. I have managed to achieve that with my identified donor siblings as well as with close paternal relatives I have found through ancestry dna testing. I am always excited to find relatives who can help me to piece together my identity. This has been a difficult process, hindered by those who feel the need to remind me to be grateful for my existence and to respect the privacy of others when all they are really doing is attempting to keep a secret that should never have been allowed in the first place. I am not against gamete donation, it is the anonymity bit that needs to go.
37
@Fiona Why shouldn't the actual parties involved (donor and recipient) decide what relationship, if any, that they want? An egg or sperm donor/seller may simply want to help, or to pay down some student loans.
5
You blew this one. I have 40 years of experience working with adult adopted people and children and adults that are the products of sperm and egg donation. What right does anyone who wants a child have to create a perdón with no history? People have a RIGHT TO INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES.
The scare tactic cum threat “no one will be a sperm/egg donor if they are identified” is silly and really immoral. No one should donate spleen or eggs if they insist on a guantee of being in something like a witness protection program. It is wrong . Your social history, your medical history,your genealogy, your ethnicity will be part of that person you helped create. You don’t owe them a relationship but you sure as hell owe them information. Tells g the grandparents they aren’t really grandparents is disingenuous and silly. The grandparents can’t force a relationship but the mother is courting their eventual rage when this all comes out. And it will.
Get woke ethics expert!!
49
True addiction is not what most people think it is. Nobody can diagnose someone else with a disease unless they are qualified to do so. The LW did not mention a medical degree.
As a society, we misuse the words "addiction" and "addict". 70% of the population drinks alcohol. Of those people about a third binge on occasion or regularly drink more than is healthy. Of THOSE people, 10% are considered to have Alcohol Use Disorder.
Alcohol Use Disorder is a neurological condition where the brain has, in essence, remapped neurological pathways to bypass the frontal cortex, meaning that the sufferer does not implement reason and rationality to his ingestion of alcohol. It is compulsive at that point.
He will also suffer from withdrawal upon the cessation of drinking. This disease can only be managed in a medical setting. No amount of peer talk therapy will reverse it.
Less than 10% of AA attendants report sobriety after a year. That number drops dramatically as time goes on. This is because AA will only work for SOME heavy drinkers, but it is extremely unlikely to work for people who have progressed to physical addiction.
The rate of alcoholic cirrhosis has risen by 40% in under 10 years. This is a true epidemic, with many complex causes. Over 50% of alcoholism is caused by faulty genetics. Again, ONLY medical intervention can work here.
Let's watch our terminology, and stop the armchair diagnoses, so we can help people seek the appropriate treatment.
15
"Alcohol Use Disorder"?!? A fancy name doesnt make alcoholism less damaging and toxic for the drunks and the people around them who suffer the consequences of this "disorder".
7
@Suzanne
it might be difficult to accurately diagnose "real alcoholism"
but, anyone can tell when someone drinks too much - whether if it's a one time thing or chronic situation - same for pot smoking. in any case, i can't think of anytime an adult should be in that condition around children; especially if they are present as supervisors.
5
@Suzanne. Thank you! For most of my life, being an alcoholic meant getting the DTs when withdrawing from alcohol. Now it seems to mean drinking more on average than guidelines allow or occasional binge drinking. Do 20-year-olds even know what the DTs are?
Of course someone who has been drinking shouldn't drive. Neither should anyone else who is impaired (by lack of sleep etc.) or distracted (by children fighting in the back seat etc).
Risks should be evaluated objectively. If you wouldn't let your kids drive with an uncle who just had a couple of beers, I hope you wouldn't let them drive with an uncle who just pulled an all nighter at work
8
I am a donor conceived person who only found out at 34 through contact with a half-brother after taking a commercial DNA test. Donor conceived people, the fertility industry's products, and their desires and interests are consistently left out of the conversation when discussing donor conception, as demonstrated here.
I eventually found my biological father through genetically genealogy and discovered he'd been searching for his offspring for more than a decade. My grandmother, my last surviving grandparent, is across the country in a nursing home, alive but disabled by a stroke. If only I'd been allowed to know my origins sooner and have contact with my biological family, I may have had the opportunity to meet my grandmother, who is, by all accounts, a remarkable woman, and whom I closely resemble.
These children are already open to contact; their DNA is publicly available. I hope they don't miss out on a relationship with their grandparent like I have.
48
The Ethicist needs to bone up on adoption/donor sperm rights. Parents, and particularly sperm donors, have little to no [ethical] rights. The rights belong to the children, who never asked to be born, especially conceived in unusual ways by shadow parents. Secrets and lies are not good for any family, and this is no exception. It's laughable for you to side with a sperm donor over a child, based on privacy! When the children are adults, their rights rule. Read up please, or discuss this issue with as many adoptees/donor kids as you can. Adoptee/ donor reunions are rarely happy, but the children, and they alone, deserve choices regarding their origins. (PS. And to anyone who thinks their actions can be private in this world-- guess again.)
18
Who says the biological parents have no rights?
7
Every human has rights, including those humans who choose to sell their biological material.
They do not have rights to make choices for others, however, or to deny others the rights to make choices for themselves. No human owns his/her offspring.
@Jennifer perhaps responsibilities would be a far better way of looking at it.
1
People these days seem to forget the old saying that-curiosity killed the cat. Why anyone, unless maybe they needed a body part, would but their DNA out in the public domain is byond my imagination. 99 times out of a hundred, no good will come of it.
11
@TED338 except when you find brothers and sisters who look like you, think like you and accept you as family. I forgot to mention nieces and nephews, cousins, biological parents and (if you are very lucky and they haven’t died before you find them) GRANDPARENTS. So much good, so much love in my experience.
15
@TED338
This is blatantly untrue.
7
Letter writer one isn’t a grandparent. He’s a stranger who happens to be related to a sperm donor. The mother and the sperm donor indicated they aren’t interested in the children having a relationship with him and the letter writer should respect their wishes.
29
@Anon the parents need to respect the rights of the children to know where they came from. Instead, their rights are being completely Ignored and Kwame doesn't even consider them in his answer, which is shameful.
13
@Anon When the children turn 18 or likely earlier they will find him anyway.
It was their Mother who blew the cover by getting DNA tests--on children below the age of consent!
That is the real ethical problem. Who does that and WHY?
5
Both questions concern the same basic concepts - those of privacy, and personal boundaries - and the need (requirement) that they be scrupulously respected by others -- even close family members - and even if it means that in doing so - you are left frustrated and disappointed --
In the first letter - Mr. Appiah hits the proverbial nail squarely on its proverbial head when he explains that --
"Nobody — not grandparents, not uncles and aunts, not cousins — has an automatic right to be in the lives of those to whom they’re genetically related."
Period -
The rest is negotiating and rationalizing and - even worse - making decisions based upon how you may think others will react (feel) if they do or do not learn the secret - without asking them -- which really makes it all about you - and a violation of the others' personal boundaries and privacy --
For the second letter --
There is a saying in Alcoholics Anonymous -
"It's not 'what' you do - or 'how much' of it you do -- it's WHY you do it." --
When LW 2 writes - "Their uncle self-medicates his debilitating anxiety with drinking and pot-smoking..." she hits this nail on its head --
Here - Mr. Appiah is way off base by suggesting the uncle's classic denial mechanism is some sort of misguided "self-identifying" --
Having an open and honest discussion with the kids will help them understand -- but the person who really needs help the most is Uncle - even if doing so is difficult and unpleasant...
11
The Ethicist is very mistaken in his first answer. Anonymity of birth mothers, birth fathers, egg and sperm donors is wrong. No child deserves to grow up not knowing his or her ancestry or medical information. The parents in this care are very naive (and selfish) if they think the children won't want to know - and if the DNA results are correct, it looks like they submitted their own DNA in the hopes of locating their father and paternal relatives. The selfishness of women who want children and yet deny to those same children knowledge of their own paternal heritage is appalling.
22
@person There many many things that many many people don't 'deserve'. Lots and lots of people are 'naive and selfish'. And lots and lots of 'appalling' behavior out in the world. On that scale, where does having children by sperm-donation, and (at least temporarily) with-holding this information fall, ethically?
5
They aren't your grandchildren. They're strangers who share your DNA. Leave it alone.
68
@Mary Poppins
Always interesting to read comments like yours. A grandfather and his grandchildren should be kept apart because . . .
21
@Mary Poppins If DNA doesn't matter, please feel free to take any ol baby home from the hospital...
No? Would you consider that to be unethical? Then you might be beginning you understand what it feels to be an anonymously donor conceived adult who want this very modicum of info.
17
Mary Poppins sounds defensive. Adoption is often a wonderful thing. Dishonesty about what it entails isn't. Insisting that these children are not his grandchildren is dishonest.
10
Re: "Do we discuss their uncle’s clear dependency with our kids in an age-appropriate way, even though their uncle does not himself recognize his behavior as dependency?"
Yes.
12
Grandparent: If your grandchildren have their DNA on a website, they may have already been notified. I have found a new grandfather, 2 aunts and 2 cousins (the grandfather is dead and the aunts deny DNA). If they decide to make contact, you can respond. Otherwise I would leave it alone.
14
We personally know two families whose lives have been disrupted by genetic testing, in one case revealing paternity that fully changed the ethnic identity of the friend. In the other case, relationships are strained due to doubts about paternity that tbe test didn't resolve. Our takeaway is these tests aren't worth the trouble they can cause. Letter writer number one is poking his nose where it doesn't belong and as you correctly note, he may pay a very, very high price.
9
@Let the Dog Drive
The genetic testing may have been the catalyst, but is it fair to blame the genetic testing on the problems? Whether it was infidelity or undisclosed adoption, the testing merely revealed that there were lies; it didn't cause the underlying situation in the first place.
That said, there is something to be said for being blissfully ignorant.
Also, I believe ethnicity is more cultural than genetic; the racial identity (or ancestral homeland/people) may very well have been misbelieved though.
8
What do you mean the test “took away her ethic identity” I think a more accurate statement would be the test broke through her denial and presented the reality.
13
@Let the Dog Drive : I am over-ready for a new family, maybe I should follow through on using kit I ordered years ago!
Also, wouldn't hurt me to see a few more family members arrested!
2
Please do your grandchildren the favor of not interfering in their lives. There is no way to know the effects that may result from such an arbitrary imposition.
16
To the grandfather:
Please do your grandchildren the favor of entering their lives. There is no way to know the good effects a loving grandpa has on his grandchildren.
They will carry their fond memories of you into a future you will not see. Tell them about their great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc. You have much to give them.
8
Ocassionally the lucubrations of philosophers are just that. They might wish the world were as they wish it —rational perfect beings that make autonomous decisions and where reason makes right. And where emotion is a leftover.
Clearly if you are the grandparent of your grandkids (tautology here) the powers and bonds of blood (yes that old concept that will always thwart reason) and the bonds of emotion (which should sidestep reason which at the end of the day is a solipsism if not justified in the imperatives of Kant) speak for truth and moral principles —and even here utilitarianism is of no help for silence; who knows how many benefits (or not) might both touch the grandkids and yourself and what an imponderable to measure.
Often enough the writers of this column coach do-nothingness under cover of a persons’ autonomy. Let’s be clear, those typically American ethnocentric legalisms are usually the comfort of not rocking the boat. Personal autonomy and legalistic interacts and even promises are always of no match to moral imperatives and honesty.
Do you want to reach your grandkids and treat them as a means and not as an end? Well, then do so. Kant is on your side.
6
As a donor-conceived person, I believe that Grandpa should tell everyone he feels comfortable telling. Secrets are corrosive and destructive. Also, I hope he finds a way to meet those kids. I never met my biological grandparents from the donor’s side. Apparently, they’ve been dead for years now. What I wouldn’t give to just sit down with them for thirty minutes and have a coffee.
33
If these grandchildren are minors, the primary ethical question should be why their DNA is on an ancestry website. Beyond that, neither the children nor their grandparents are party to any agreement banning contact and deserve the opportunity to know the other is out there and make their own choice to welcome or decline contact. Why does a biological parent who didn't participate in my upbringing and is not my legal parent have any say in the matter?
20
Re: "Can I Contact the Grandkids..." LW#1 actually never asks that. He asks "Was it right for [my son] to [be a sperm donor]and not tell his family?" Answer: yes.
He also asks, "Should I tell [my kids they have additional nieces and nephews]?" Let's consider. We are not told if the grandchildren are adults; Dr. Appiah assumes they are not, and they each are registered users of an ancestry website, with those accounts managed by a different person. Now, why are persons who want to keep their genetic parentage private on a DNA ancestry site?
Did the website make LW#1 sign a confidentiality/non-disclosure/no-contact agreement? Did it promise the grandkids they'd never be contacted by those related to them? If not, then it seems the info is his to share.
12
@Loosedhorse
Yes, the headline does not match the actual questions LW1 asks. This is often true in this column. An example of click/bait? Regardless, the headline does raise an interesting and compelling ethical question.
4
I think the answer to the first question could be very simple: They Are Not Your Grandchildren.
16
@Shaun Eli Breidbart in whose eyes? Not mine, not his and most likely not theirs.
4
@Fiona
"most likely not theirs"
On what do you base this? Why would you have any idea what those children want? It seems fairly clear they were not consulted in this.
2
@DW as a donor conceived adult I have followed the research in this area and partipate in discussions in a number of online groups. As with adoption research, there has been a considerable amount of research conducted in this area and statistically speaking the vast majority of DC people want information and contact with biological family members. The earlier the better for all concerned if the aim is to ensure good outcomes.
7
"Some time later, the website showed I was closely related to two other registered users, and I found the person who managed their accounts."
The reason people sign up for sites like Ancestry.com, FTDNA, 23&Me, et al., is to FIND their relatives and ancestors.
The notion that they should be prevented from knowing their relatives is outdated, prejudiced, and inhumane. Of course the grandfather should reach out to his grandchildren, meet them, show them pictures of other relatives and ancestors, tell them everything he knows about the family, etc.
Kwame seems more concerned about "sperm and egg donors" (vendors) than about living people.
16
@Pecan
As I read it, the Ethicist's concern was less about the sperm or egg donors' privacy than about preserving the donor system itself. If you force donors to reveal their identity, they may be unwilling to donate in the first place. That may not be the result you want.
10
@Kate statistics show that this has not been the case at all where clinics or even countries have policies or laws mandating transparency and allowing donor identification.
1
@Kate
Why do you use the terms "donate" and "donors?"
They do not donate (give) their eggs and sperm to the victims of the fertility racket. They are not donors (givers). They are sellers who sell their biological material to doctors who often throw the material away and substitute their own.
This question is going to be completely irrelevant in very short order. What we see from the use of ancestry data bases to catch the Golden State Killer, very soon everybody will be able to figure out exactly how they are genetically related to everybody else on the planet. Whether or not you choose to upload your own DNA will be irrelevant because enough of your relatives will have done so to figure out your relatedness to anybody else. There will be no anonymous egg donation, sperm donation, or adoption, or, for that matter secrets about the existence or paternity or any child. Thus, nobody will be writing in "I found out my father had a child with another woman 5 years before he married my mother. Should I tell my brother?" Everybody will know everything. For good or ill, that's just a fact. More than half the people I know have already uploaded their DNA to a genetics data base. It costs $59.
20
What is the cause of this young man’s anxiety? Why does he require self-medicating? While he may simply be a pleasure-seeker in denial, he might also have an underlying brain pattern (I will not call it “mental illness) that could he medically addressed. There are several brain diseases and configurations that do this. Or perhaps something occurred in his life, or in his relationships, that haunts him whenever a clear head lets it back in. The family seems to enable him with the use of their vacation home; might they not show more love by trying to support him in addressing his pain?
6
As for the Grandfather the question that leaps out at me is how did this genetic information end up online accessible to anybody? "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much" when she claims to want privacy. Baloney. What has happened is exactly what she wanted to happen. A critical fact for me is how old these Grandchildren are now. It's a huge difference if they are 5, 15 or 25 don't you think?
26
@Ben
Exactly.Mom manages the account and, if the kids were minors she sent a sample of the kids’ DNA.The purpose of using DNA on ancestry sites is to find matches/identify possible relatives.Why else do that rather than do genealogy the classicway? If the DNA is out there, others can find her kids’ DNA.
Now, the question of whether the kids, once they are old enough to make a choice, wish to have contact with the grandad is a separate issue, as is whether she, speaking on behalf of her minor kids, wants them to have contact with grandad.They can, of course, express a preference if they are old enough to understand use of their DNA even if still minors if mom has told them she submitted it. Mom can also permit them to have contact. In any case, once they reach an age at which they are able to understand, they should be told just how mom’s pregnancy came about. For their emotional health, this should not be sprung on them when they reach the age of majority-similar to best practice for adoptees.
Why should LW1 be precluded from at least requesting contact with the kids? If the children are minors, presumably mom can decide whether he will have contact.Once the kids are no longer minors, they can decide themselves. One may argue that even older teens should be able to express a preference and that mom strongly consider their preference and act on it.
Regardless, mom likely knew what she was doing and it’s possible consequences. Did she want her kids to be found?
5
@human being maybe she thought it would be fun to find some adorable half-siblings and meet up once or twice, maybe take some really cute photos to posted on Instagram, but the thought of having to allow allow an adult paternal family member access to her children or the possibility that these strangers may wish to play some sort of role in their lives just plain scared her off.
2
@human being maybe she was thinking she would find some adorable half-siblings and meet up once or twice so that she could take some really cute photos of all of them to post on social media or even create a special Facebook page so they could watch each other grow up.it could be that the thought of having an actual adult paternal family member who might want more in terms of a real relationship with her children was simply too scary for her to contemplate. Better to put it on hold until the children are all grown up. Whose needs are being met here?
We are on the opposite end of a DNA test: we used a sperm bank donor who was know-able then charged his mind and switched to anonymous. His parent's DNA matched to our kids on a testing site but the kit is managed by that grandparent's teen grandchild who doesn't understand why my kids show up as that person's grandkids and won't put us in touch with the grandparent. Can't speak for the mom in this Ethicist scenario but we put our kids on that site to find their donor siblings. We were not expecting to find a grandparent. We have not pushed the kit manager because we respect the donor's privacy.
9
I think LW1 just recently watched "The Kids are Alright." Make up a better letter next time.
2
Impaired Uncle : Speak with him privately, express your concern about his behavior around children. If he doesn't improve, limit your contact. Take your family elsewhere. Do not force the other family members to kick him out, that would be cruel, and may be the only thing he has to enjoy. Make a point of involving him in activities and listening. He just might surprise you. If not, at least you gave it your best shot. Good luck.
14
Stop aiding this guy. You are not helping. We had a family member who was abused alcohol. After enough ruined family events, he was told that he couldn't come drunk and that he couldn't drink at the events (even if alcohol was served - most events were alcohol free). That was the choice. Having the drunk uncle around kids just wasn't worth the risk.
3
@sjs
The LW indicates that the uncle does not appear to be “clearly intoxicated,” whatever that means to the LW but the LW also says that they have started to discuss with their kids the necessity to be mindful as drugs may begin to appear in their relationship, presumably with their peers. If this is so, why would the LW not discuss the situation with his /her kids? They are observant as are most kids. What is shameful about such a conversation other than it being about a relative rather than a non-family member? If the substance use has been serious enough for the uncle’s relatives to suggest treatment and if they are decent judges of whether treatment would be advisable rather than radical temperance adherents, then the parents should discus the situation in a non-judge mental way. The LW conjectures that the uncle self-medicates his anxiety by using. But use may also exacerbate an underlying mental impairment. Many peiolple have dual diagnoses:mental and substance use disorder. Both probably need to be addressed in order for successful treatment to occur. In this case the LW is not a diagnostician and would be ill-advised to label the uncle with any diagnosis: psychological or substance use. Simply discuss what is obvious. It goes without saying that the kids should be cautioned not to allow the uncle to drive them if he has been using/drinking and, if this is occurring a state in which marijuana is illegal, that fact should be acknowledged not avoided. Kids know...
5
The mother promised not to disclose the father's identity, then intentionally put the children's DNA out there available for the search. Now she's playing games with the grandfather, coyly refusing to disclose the obvious. Grandpa should probably seek out a relationship with those kids, if only so they have a better role model in their lives than their drama-seeking, manipulative mother.
16
I was conceived by an anonymous sperm donor in the 80's. It is cruel to create children and purposefully keep them a secret/keep them away from their biological family. I'm an active member of the now-adult donor conceived community and I speak nearly unanimously when I say that those of us who have grown up with half of our biological identity kept away from us to make life more convenient for our parents are working hard to have anonymity banned completely.
I was able to find my biological stranger father using DNA testing. I reached out to him, knowing I would be crushed forevermore if I was rejected, and thankfully he was kind to me. He seems ashamed of his part in this and doesn't wish it to be known publicly. That hurts, honestly.
All formerly anonymous donors can now be found. In the process they will be revealed to close family members who DNA test, similarly to how this grandmother found her grandchildren. No one who wishes to remain anonymous should be donating at this point, as it simply isn't possibly to contain the "secret" in this day and age.
Surely Kwame should read up more on the current movement from closed to open adoptions, and how much healthier it is for the children involved. Even foster care adoptions that involve abuse encourage keeping biological connections today. With the long line of people pursing adoption, the ones who are unwilling to maintain those important connections can be weeded out.
Grandma, your grandchildren need you.
48
@Elli
This and related questions are also being litigated.
6
I am donor conceived and strongly feel the children deserve to know the truth about their genetic and familial history. Every person deserves to know who their genetic parents - and grandparents - are/were. Who is not letting the children know "protecting"? Not the children, that's for sure. Lying to children, even by omission, about the very make up of their existence is completely unethical. I was conceived in Berkeley in 1963 and the records of the fertility clinic burned! No, the "secret" of who my donor was did not burn up as well, because of my DNA. Thank goodness. No more lies. No more deceit and power withheld from those most affected by this process.
52
@boggypeak I am a fellow donor conceived person. "The records burned in a fire" or "were lost in a flood" are old lies. Many of us have heard them, and I doubt it was ever true. As they say, though, DNA doesn't lie.
21
As an adoptee I would welcome knowing my grandfather. It doesn’t take away from the adopted family. In fact I learned of my grandfather and have his photo when I discovered my birth family some years ago. He looks a little like me v
37
Just like to point out that letter #2 doesn't indicate whether smoking pot is illegal in the state where the summer house is located.
If it isn't, then the uncle is engaging in 2 legal activities--drinking and smoking weed--that the LW disapproves of. If he rarely appears intoxicated and this is also a vacation place for him--which may be why he's indulging there--I'm struggling to understand why they so clearly label the uncle an addict with dependency issues.
Maybe I'm missing something.
15
@Talbot Also noticed the way this phrased: our family shares a summer house, the children's uncle does this...
If this was the letter writer's family's house, "their uncle" would be "my brother."
I think the person writing the letter is the spouse of person whose family has the house, and "their uncle" is the brother of the letter writer's spouse. That seems especially so if the uncle has his "own room."
I would caution the letter writer, as an in-law, not to try to set the pace for labeling someone an addict under these circumstances.
15
LW1, How is the mother "shocked" when she has posted information on publicly searchable sites? Something is not making sense here. I would forgo any contact with the children until I know their ages and understand their family dynamics. DNA does not make a grandparent. The best interests of the children is uppermost in my mind. The "grandparent" can always provide medical information at some time.
17
@Just Me it is not just about wanting information, it is about relationships- as an adult donor conceived person I believe that children have a right to grow up knowing how they were conceived and who their family members are, both social and biological.
2
LW 2: This situation actually presents a wonderful opening for some very real conversations about addiction. Talking about addiction in the abstract can be difficult, as too often addicts are made out to be evil ghouls that don't seem to really exist. In reality, they are relatives and friends, and their problems sadly affect not only them but the people who love them.
Use this opportunity to talk about the uncle's anxiety, and how there are other ways to deal with it. If your kids develop anxiety, or later have friends or loved ones who suffer from it, they will be better equipped to recognize the problem and how to deal with it.
Use this opportunity to talk about how addiction has affected the uncle's life and the lives of his loved ones. Talk about how hard it can be for people to seek treatment, but also how important it is that they do. If your kids ever end up with problems with alcohol or other substances, these discussions may be a foundation upon which they more quickly recognize their problems and the need to get help.
Also use this opportunity to show that we accept loved ones despite their imperfections. Uncle is not a bad person because of his troubles. But sometimes you will still have to draw boundaries to allow him to stay in your lives. This lesson can be applied to all sorts of situations besides just substance abuse.
20
For an "ethicist" the first answer could not be farther from the mark. Somehow the so-called ethical expert takes the "fertility" industry's party line in that the contract between recipient and donor parent are paramount to the actual PEOPLE created by this process, and the anonymity contracted holds more weight than the needs or desire of children to have knowledge of, or relationships with, their genetic relatives. Anonymity is quickly becoming passe in countries around the word, because the law is finally beginning to take DC children's wants and needs into account. Just because the U.S. lags woefully behind here is no reason that continuing potentially pernicious secrecy is warranted. One thing the "Ethicist" doesn't consider here is that there may have been an agreement between the mother and father, but the children were not party to this agreement, nor were the grandparents. There are at least six people in this equation apart from the two people the "Ethicist" seems to put all the weight of his decision on: the two children and two grandchildren (not to exclude the that relatives also mentioned). These children absolutely have the right to communicate with their biological relatives and the grandparents have an equal right to have access to communicate with the children. If the kids are not over 18, I would recommend the grandparents write letters to the kids, detailing family history and health information that the mother can then give them at age 18.
33
@Not Lola
I don't really understand arguments such as this. I do agree children (adult or otherwise) have a right to knowledge of their history and to attempt to find and contact biological relatives if they wish. That's not what's going on here. This is the biological grandfather asking about HIS rights and HIS needs - not the children's. If the kids get older and look for their father or grandparents, that's one thing. I don't see how the grandfather has a right to intrude in their lives.
The argument that the children weren't party to the adoption agreement doesn't hold water with me. None of us, not one single person on earth, has any involvement in the agreements or circumstances or arrangements that led to our birth. Not one of us. We have no possible way to know about or participate in whatever our parents promised each other or other people, unless they decide to tell us. Adoptees are no different from the rest of us in this regard.
36
@Not Lola well said!
2
@DW As a donor conceived person, I may not have participated or have had any way to, and that's even more reason why I'm not bound by what other people decided for me before I even existed.
6
My experience is that telling kids at a relatively young age about relatives with issues is positive. They learn that the behavior they see is not preferred and shouldn't be emulated. They learn about adiction and its consequences without it being about them and particularly not about why they shouldn't do what all their friends are doing. As you continue a relationship with the pothead, they learn the power of family and acceptance of people's failings.
16
@SAO All good until "the pothead".
2
I discovered I was conceived via egg donation in early adulthood after taking a DNA test. Since finding out, I've realized that there are issues with the gamete donation industry on all sides, from the shame it perpetuates around infertility to the issue of economic disparity between donors/surrogates and recipients. Donor anonymity is one of these problematic facets. It appears to make things easier and neater, but can be deeply damaging to donor offspring.
What the author says is true– without anonymity, likely many current donors and recipients would not participate in the gamete donation industry. But the ones who would would be parents who would be better able to handle the sometimes painful experience of having a donor-conceived child. They would be donors who would be prepared with a plan for how to manage or decline a relationship with genetic offspring.
I was lucky to find my genetic mother based on DNA matches. She declined contact with me, and that is her right. However, she is not–legally, morally or otherwise– able to prevent me from having contact with other members of her family. I have formed a warm relationship with her two sisters, which means the world to me.
I encourage readers not to follow the advice written in this article. Instead, please seek other opinions, including that of your family members, other donors, and adult donor-conceived people. Good luck on your journey, and congratulations on finding your genetic grandchildren.
47
@J
Agree that the Ethicist's advice (on this and many other matters) is worthless.
Just a couple of points:
1) The "donors" of eggs and sperm are not donors (givers). They are vendors (sellers.)
2) Many doctors involved in the fertility business use their OWN sperm and let their customers believe the sperm was actually from a "donor" (seller) who is a tall brilliant musical medical student.
10
The answer to the first question is just 100% wrong. The only reason to put your DNA data on a public site is to make yourself open to discovering relatives. Each party has the option of contacting the other and accepting (or not) those communications.
Just because the son wants his involvement secret is no reason the children should be deprived of the joys of knowing their grandfather, or the grandparents deprived of the joys of spoiling grandchildren.
46
@DataDrivenFP
Do you think the children put their DNA on the website?
8
@DW
Yes. And it paid off. Their grandfather (an enormously important figure in anyone's life) found them.
5
@Pecan
I don't understand this blinkered insistence on biology. No - it is absolutely not true that a grandfather is an enormously important figure in anyone's life. A (biological or other) grandfather is an important figure in SOME people's lives.
6
Are the grandchildren really children? Can a child register on a DNA registry site without the approval of a parent? It is hard to imagine that a mother who didn’t want her kids to learn of their father’s identity would submit their DNA or give her approval for her kids to do so.
57
Yes, and what is the policy of the company when subsequent relatives are found? Are the customers then notified of these relatives? Certainly if these grandkids have, or ever get, accounts, they will be able to access their relatives on their own.
2
@Mike P
The way I read the letter, the mother manages the accounts of the grandchildren. To me, this suggests that they are minors, and that she supports, or at least goes along with, their presence on the site. I get the feeling there's something more going on than is said...
17
@Dave
There are many accounts on the DNA sites that are managed by others. The person searching for relatives and ancestors may be inept at using a computer. In some cases, the family historian may manage the account of a husband or wife who is less interested in genealogy.
Commenters (and columnists) making blanket statements about the ancestry sites should take time to visit the sites and see how they work.
3
Seems to me that the family that shares a vacation home could arrange to be there when the uncle is not, if his behavior is not creating a good environment for the children. Frankly, there's no need to dive into the details of the uncle's habits with the kids if you make it clear to the uncle that you can't be there with the children while he's under the influence.
This isn't meant to punish the uncle; just a family choice about whether introducing kids to concepts like self-medication for anxiety is really age-appropriate.
22
The advice to the grandparent is wrong. I suspect Kwame did not read the question carefully.
This is not the case of snooping or otherwise discovering a family secret. The DNA of the children is up on a commercial website in an account configured for public access. It is perfectly legitimate to contact relatives discovered thru DNA testing. As the companies tell those being tested, there may be surprises when tracking DNA ancestors. Here is one of those surprises.
There is no law or moral argument against sharing what you find on a DNA website with anyone you wish. If the grandchildren did not want this they could have easily selected a privacy option on the DNA site to keep matches from finding them.
74
@Mike T.
There is no law, but there may be a moral argument against sharing what you find. It is very simple: the subject of said information wishes it to remain private. Obviously whether or not the subject's wishes carry weight depend on the information. There is a lot of publicly available information out there if you know where to look. Plenty of this you might prefer your relatives to not know about.
10
@Mike T. I disagree. Just because technology has superseded a previous agreement between the two parties doesn't make it appropriate to say "well it's public so it must be fair game." Lots of things are publicly available on the web, e.g. house purchase records or a person's home address, but I wouldn't imagine you'd walk up to a stranger and say, "Hey, I read you paid $1.5 million for your house! I think you overpaid!" Inserting yourself into someone else's business uninvited is a problem.
The point is, blood doesn't automatically make you family; being invited to share someone's life day in and day out does. The grandfather has not been invited, nor do the two parties involved wish to formally become a family. In fact, they went out of their way to formally NOT be a family.
13
@Mike T. So you're saying that children, who have no say in their conception to begin with, should proactively scrub the Internet and select privacy options on DNA testing sites (of which there are so many now) lest someone else who has no say in their conception have a problem with how it came about?
2
Let me pose this question in our very interesting times. If the authorities visited your summer house and found illegal (debatable in many areas if not medical i.e. treatment for cancer) "substances", would you risk losing custody of your children, a license (i.e. nurse), or other? The uncle needs to not share your roof, period. Why risk it.
58
@poslug This is completely unrealistic. Social services is not going to remove children from their parents because another adult in a vacation home had an illegal substance. Actually it probably wouldn't even be referred to CPS, the police would simply arrest the uncle. It's highly unlikely they would alert social services if the parents were not also in possession of the substance or high. Professional licensure is similarly unrelated. An adult can't lose their professional license because their sibling is arrested for possession of marijuana.
19
"If we want adoptions to occur, it’s unwise to burden adoptive families with all these obligations, absent some affirmative reason for doing so. It has to be a choice."
Kwame, it sounds like you're very unfamiliar with how adoption typically works these days. Domestic adoptions are more likely than not open, meaning that the birthparents have some contact with the adoptive parents/child, ranging from occasional updates by letter to close personal relationships.
There absolutely is an affirmative reason for this sort of contact. Adoptees deserve to know their history, especially a family medical history, which every doctor will ask their patient about. Adoptive parents should support this knowledge being available.
43
@Shelly
It’s still the right of the parents to enter into private agreements, even if most no longer do. The medical reasoning thing is overstated, for while the medical history of parents or other relatives maybe illustrative of their health, it is not a guarantee of any real assurance to off spring. We too readily trash peoples’ privacy these days.
47
I’m not sure the medical risk (and the inherent good of knowing your medical history) is overstated at all. I have just watched a family where the adopted child, now a father in his forties, was diagnosed with Huntington’s. He may have unwittingly passed this horrible disease on to his children (they cannot be tested until 18 for legal reasons), where with genetic counselling this could have been avoided.
He also was denied the opportunity to appropriately plan his life. For instance if he had known he might only have forty years of able bodied living he might have made very different decisions about how to spend his time, manage his money, work, and so on.
I also believe the undiagnosed but incipient Huntington’s has been acting on his brain for years and might explain ways that he has absolutely destroyed his children’s psychologically, as well as his relationships with people around him.
Huntington’s is inherited and if he had known his relatives, or about them, he would have had a far better chance of being aware of all this. Really, a tragedy could have been averted.
45
@Anon
Medical history for adoptees IS over stated. It is possible to give an anonymous questionnaire to the sperm and egg donors then pass them on to the child.
Many diseases can just pop up seemingly out of nowhere and ones that we are "sure" we will get may never come. A close friend lived her life in total fear of getting breast cancer in her 20s like her mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother. She is in her late 50s and has no sign. She is an emotional wreck. I have disabling RA and PsA that came from nowhere. I am in my early 50s. Knowing would not have changed a thing for me, but not knowing would have allowed my friend to live a normal, healthy life. Bottom line, we do not know what cards are in our hands until it is time to turn them over and you need to act accordingly.
3
LW2: I think this conversation with your children is LONG overdue. I remember very clearly that the first time I became aware of the connection between alcohol and the behavior of an adult relative was the summer between first and second grade. This was not someone who was falling-down drunk, just tipsy several times over the course of that summer. Adults always think children will ask questions if they notice something, but they won't ask questions if they sense that the topic is taboo. If your children are at an age where you believe they are beginning to encounter drugs and alcohol in their own social interactions, they have probably long ago formed opinions about their uncle. You might want to talk to the uncle about securing/monitoring his stash when the kids are around. Middle/high schoolers are known to explore. Many a bad habit has begun in mom and dad's (or uncle's) liquor cabinet/medicine cabinet/supply.
93
@Nicole: I agree that young children can be highly observant of unusual or unhealthy adult behavior. Explanations can be geared to the child's age and evolve over time. Our culture is swamped with addiction and mental health issues, and it's a mistake to pretend it doesn't exist when it's right in front of the kids in someone they care about and look up to. It's an opportunity for parents to model how deal with someone you care about who struggles with addiction, including compassion but also setting boundaries.
17
The ancestry question/story seems to have some fish in it.
On the part of the grandchildren's mother - putting the children's DNA online is just asking to be found by relatives! I mean, that's the idea, isn't it? I wonder if this was her goal all along (especially given the grandchildren's father's apparent aversion to being involved in the lives of his offspring).
On the part of the son - I wonder what form his sperm donation took. It wouldn't surprise me if the grandchildren's mother got pregnant by their father and he didn't want anything to do with them. "Sperm donor" may just be a euphemism.
As for not telling the family - that's the son's choice. His siblings and older can't miss what they don't know they're missing. It is different than information about ancestry, to which you should have a right by your existence.
What makes this interesting is that nobody broke confidence (except maybe the grandchildren's mother by putting their DNA online) to make this situation. If he didn't know what he knows now, he could have mentioned that the DNA website suggested grandchildren. But maybe not anymore
35
@Dave: Indeed. The cat is out of the bag, and in all likelihood, the children's presence on Ancestry indicates that they are over the age of eighteen and initiated the DNA testing themselves. They can just as easily find this grandparent as the grandparent found them. Regardless, this is a very sticky situation, and as painful as it may be, I suggest that this grandfather hold off and let the grandchildren make the first move.
66
@Allison
The ages of all involved are another thing I meant to mention. What suggests the grandchildren may be minors is "closely related to two other registered users, and I found the person who managed their accounts." To me, this suggests that the mother is the one who put the DNA up there and may mean that the grandchildren are still minors (otherwise, why would she manage their accounts)? If this is the case, that she put the DNA up there makes it seem like she wants them to be found.
3
@Dave
I wonder why you (and Kwame) think the "registered users" of the DNA site are children. I think they are adults. There are many registered users whose sites are managed by others. The reasons for this are varied: maybe the manager is more adept at searching, putting 2 and 2 together, etc.
And I don't see why the son has any "choice" in the matter. His children own their own bodies, genetic information, etc., and even if their father (and mother) are telling the truth, they still have a right to know their grandfather, aunts and uncles, etc. Why burden them with shame and secrecy?
I hope the grandfather and his grandchildren connect, share stories and pictures, and set an example for those who share their genetics but not, apparently, their desire for the truth.
9
"Truthfulness about important matters is a core element of what we owe to those we love."
Here, in his response to the second question, Kwame reverses the opinion he expressed in his response to the first question.
There, secrecy trumps truth.
22
@Pecan
But these are very different situations. --In the first situation the relationship is only genetic and not based on personal connection and interaction. Because a stranger has a genetic relationship to me does not oblige me to allow that person into my life. Real and intimate relationships are formed through emotional and communicative interactions. Shared DNA does not allow you to insert yourself into and alter the balance of another family.
Would you allow strangers to dictate to you that you make them part of your intimate circle?
You are not the parent in this family and it is not your choice.
--In the second situation the children need to be given a deeper understanding of someone within the intimate circle for their own protection and ability to understand the situation.
61
@eliane
Saying "the relationship is only genetic" reveals a need for education.
Asking me if I would "allow strangers to dictate . . ." reveals a lack of understanding about how the DNA websites operate. Maybe if you take a look at them, you'll realize that your notions about genealogy/family history are uninformed.
Starting places: Ancestry.com , 23&Me , FTDNA .
@eliane speaks
"Only genetic"?
Are you adopted or donor conceived, or do you have knowledge of, and a relationship, with your parents? Because if you are not adopted or DC, you really don't have the right to discount anyone's desire to be able to communicate and have a relationship with tbeir biological relatives.
No, biology isn't everything, and family is what you choose to make it, but no one has the right to tell biological relatives that their relationship is "only genetic". If genetics don't matter, by all means, take any baby home from the maternity ward.
3