Dear Abby: Despite Her Guilt, Mom Is Reluctant to Tell Son the Truth About His Parentage

[cereta]

DEAR ABBY: I was unhappily married years ago and conceived a child by an ex-boyfriend. My son is now 31. I divorced my husband 28 years ago. He knew the baby was not his, but claimed him as his own son. He refused to do a DNA test when we were going through the divorce. He died a few years ago.

I am in contact with my son's biological father. They look identical, and my grandson looks just like his father and grandfather.

My guilt is consuming me. I want to tell my son that even though the dad he knew all his life is gone, he still has a chance to get to know another father who is his blood. On the other hand, I don't want to ruin my relationship with my son and grandchildren, whom I love very much. How can I tell the truth without hurting my son and our relationship? -- RIGHTING A WRONG

DEAR RIGHTING: Better late than never. Your son needs to know that the man who raised him and claimed him as his own was not his biological father so that he can have a complete medical history. If the birth father wasn't interested in knowing or supporting his son, he sounds more like a sperm donor than a "blood" relative to me. Do not be surprised if your son isn't interested in knowing more about his birth father than the information I suggested.

Comments

[cereta]

I'm sort of curious to see what people think of this. I am generally of the opinion that (a) you don't keep secrets about people from them, and (b) if there's something significant that my kid could find out some other way, it's best it comes from me. However, I seem to be in the minority on the DA site.

[vass]

I'm with you on this.

LW's question was "How can I tell the truth without hurting my son and our relationship?" and that's the wrong question. He will be hurt, and it will hurt their relationship, but she is hurting her son by keeping the knowledge from him, and the damage to their relationship has already been done, he just doesn't know that yet.

In addition to the medical history thing, and the truth being of value simply because it's the truth, I think he also deserves to know the part where his father knew all along that he wasn't biologically related to him, and it didn't change their relationship. "He knew, and you were still his son" is really important information.

[xenacryst]

I'm with both of you - especially the bit about his non-biological dad nevertheless seeing him as his son.

I would also caution against presenting the ex as a substitute dad - while it's entirely possible that they may get to know each other, even become friendly, there is no way that they can ever have the same relationship as a child growing up with their parents has. Abby hints at this, but because the LW actually suggests pushing that, I'd go farther than Abby and say how that ain't gonna happen.

[tielan]

How can I tell the truth without hurting my son and our relationship?

Not gonna happen. So she's best off sucking it up and telling him, weathering the issue of having lied to her son all these years.

I suppose, she could possibly not ever tell him and hope for the best, but at some point - given technology, disease screening, hereditary issues, ancestry curiosity, etc., - her son is probably going to do some kind of DNA test and if all the boxes don't match, he's going to have questions. At which point, she's going to come under the spotlight and whatever relationship she has with her son and grandchildren will be utterly ruined anyway.

So, yeah, bite the bullet, LW.

I do have a few questions, though: I feel like "he still has a chance to get to know another father who is his blood" puts undue emphasis on biological parenting. The woman has this idea that because her son lost his 'first' father, he has the chance to know his 'real' father, even though his 'real' father hasn't (apparently) pushed to see his son.

Also, can anyone explain the significance "He refused to do a DNA test when we were going through the divorce"? He being the divorced husband who knew the child was not his but claimed him anyway so...why the DNA test? I'm confused.

[rosefox]

Probably because it could have freed him from the legal obligation to pay child support.

[minoanmiss]

"He knew, and you were still his son" is really important information.

Word. (And add me to the votes for Tell)

[tielan]

I still feel like I'm missing something.

The ex-boyfriend is the biodad of the son. The ex-husband is the man who wouldn't take the DNA test.

These two things...do not match to me?

[cereta]

I suspect he loved the boy and regarded him as his son and didn't want to lose legal access to him.

[tielan]

Okay, that makes more sense. I guess I'm just cynical: in a lot of cases of divorce I've seen, the father seems to want all opportunities to get out of paying child support.

The idea that a non-biological parent would be denied access to a child they'd parented and wanted to continue to parent didn't occur to me.