That can cut both ways though. According to the OP, the child is spending time with bio-dad at the approval of mom and her husband/“daddy” to child. Dr. Laura is apparently telling him to not only shut up about it, but to leave and never come back. Imagine down the road, the truth comes out somehow, and Mommy tells her child “I gave him every opportunity to see you, but one day your biological daddy just up and left, and refused to see you again.” Don’t tell me that can’t cause trauma as well, even later in life; adopted kids can go through a lot of emotional turmoil when they find out or think that someone didn’t want them.
If they’re all adults and things continue on pleasantly with mom and dad and “Uncle Bob”, then it could be brought up by all three parents when the child is much older. But who knows if that’ll continue.
I’m going to take this from the perspective of adoption.
The vast majority of adoption professionals and people who work with adoptive kids believe the best possible situation is that the bio parents remain in the child’s life in some fashion.
The child is less likely to have rejection issues later. The child can get the whole story from all his parents - and, as long as the parents remain truthful to the best ability of the child’s understanding, there will be less opportunity for the child to feel like he was lied to. The child gets some answers to the fundamental questions in life - who am I and where did I come from.
If there are “issues” later, Mom and her husband are the child’s legal parents and have a right to control access to the child. Adoptive parents have been known to pull bio parents visitation privleges (there are no states where bio parents have “rights” to the child) when contact is no longer in the best interests of the child.
One of my girlfriends lived in a situation much like the one in the OP. Her bio dad was never part of her mom’s life while she was alive. Her mom’s husband was always the dad she knew. As a young teenager, she became aware of her bio dad and got to meet him - then he died when she was a young adult. She is very grateful for the time she did get to spend with him.
How in the HELL is this any different than a couple who divorces when a kid is really small (say, a year old) and then she re-marries? There is absolutely no need for bio-dad to leave the situation. People who divorce nearly always have contact with the kid, regardless of 2nd spouses. This is simply another example of Dr. Laura-NOT’s way to fuck up a perfectly good relationship. Because we all know how well she does in her own personal life, don’t we?
I have to agree with Kalhoun. The divorce situation was the first thing to come to my mind. If they were maried and got divorced when the child was a few months old and the mother remarried a year later, would we suggest that first husband/biodad just disappear for the sake of the new family? I don’t see how this is any different. The current husband is the baby’s primary father figure. Many people have a father and a step-father. This situation is a little backward, but I don’t see why they can’t make it work the same way.
To me, it sort of boils down to an issue of trust on a certain level. My parents screwed up tons of times, but as long as they were telling me the truth about the big bad world, I could deal with it. They got divorced, made stupid mistakes, I had a step-father for awhile, blah, etc. The main thing to my mind was and is: The world IS how it IS. Is my family behind me? Can I trust them to tell me the truth, and help me deal with reality in an honest and trustworthy way?
If I turned 18 and found out my mother had pushed my WILLING bio-dad out of my life, then lied to me for years about it, I’d have some serious trust and betrayal issues.
Well IMO ultimately it’s a risk assessment situation given the way the OP described the situation.
Scenario : I have a stable nuclear family where my husband loves my non-bio son and is the “father” to this boy. The boy’s bio dad does not know he exists and I do not know how he will take the news that he is a bio-dad.
He could be uninterested in engaging and walk away as there is no “support” issue.
He could be engaged and supportive.
He could be engaged and initally supportive then walk away
when he forms a new family or moves away from the area.
He could be engaged and supportive then contentious if he perceives bio-mom and non-bio dad are doing something with the kid he disagrees strongly with.
He could walk away intially then change his mind and re-emerge years later as a presence (potentially supportive or intrusive) years later because he (for whatever reason) wants to reconnect.
In all these scenarios mainly concerned with “re-engaging” the bio-dad with his son I think one of the most important practical elements is being overlooked, which is the impact this re-engagement will have on the bond between the non-bio custodial dad and his son. I can’t speak for all men and I have never been in a situation when I had to “share” my son with another man (I’m divorced but my ex never re-married). I’m sure it’s petty, but from a lizard brain perspective I am innately jealous of the tight bond I have with my son and I can’t imagine how that might have been affected if I had to “share” my son’s upbringing from when he was a toddler with another male authority figure. Maybe it would have worked out fine, but my son is sometimes stubborn and known to want his own way, and if he had someone out there to appeal my decisions to (beyond his mother) it would potentially be a difficult situation.
Who is really being helped here by re-introducing bio-dad? If the ex is clueless about the child’s existence and the child is well taken care of, why potentially turn the ex’s life upside down. Thrusting an unknown about child into a man’s potentially complicated life and established relationships because of a desire (mainly by the mother) for them to “connect” is IMO an action that can turn out negatively just as often as it can turn out positively. Beyond this risk is the additional risk of the potential interference with the non-bio dad - son bonding process if his bio-dad is engaged and in the picture.
As in divorces and other blended family scenarios sometimes these compications can’t be helped and we do the best we can, however, I don’t necessarily see the logic or the rationale in choosing to make these situations more complicated if there is no overriding reason to do so other than to placate a mother’s emotional desire for bio-dad and kid to connect (which IMO is what drives most of these scenarios) if the child is not known about by the ex and the mother is married.
The question of “Is it good and necessary for the child’s welfare?” should be the ultimate determinant in these situations and I’m not sure the aforesaid potential risks to the non-bio father-son relationship are always worth plugging a surprised, previously clueless bio-dad back into the equation.
Good thing I refreshed, or I would have just reiterated Dangerosa’s post.
“Good and necessary to the welfare of the child?” Good, most definitely, the way things are now. Necessary? Perhaps not, but neither are piano lessons. I wonder if she’s against those too.*
*[sub]I recognize that piano lessons do not fall into the same realm of a child’s developmental experience as does the presence/absence of certain loving individuals, but I’m not convinced that there needs to be a bright line drawn around that realm and making it a “special case”.[/sub]
Astro said, "Who is really being helped here by re-introducing bio-dad? If the ex is clueless about the child’s existence and the child is well taken care of, why potentially turn the ex’s life upside down. Thrusting an unknown about child into a man’s potentially complicated life and established relationships because of a desire (mainly by the mother) for them to “connect” is IMO an action that can turn out negatively just as often as it can turn out positively. Beyond this risk is the additional risk of the potential interference with the non-bio dad - son bonding process if his bio-dad is engaged and in the picture. "
For one thing, the mother introduced bio dad because they wanted medical information. She was wrong to withhold this information in the first place, and I think it’s much better that she did it while the child is young. Then you won’t have the “spoiled brat” syndrome that has you so apprehensive about your son’s interaction with a potential step-parent. (Incidentally, teaching a child that there is more than one authority figure in his or her life is instrumental in raising a healthy kid).
It is beyond me how anyone could find this situation anything but healthy for the kid.
All good points Astro. It’s true that there is certainly an emotional component to the mother’s desire (if that’s the case here, in the OP it just says “they contacted him”, but it does seem likely) for the child to have a connection to the bio-dad. Who knows what her specific reasons are in this case, but it just seems that: Given that upon being contacted, bio-dad is interested and does become engaged, the mother here may have felt that she made, in good conscience, the best choice for everyone involved. I’m a mother too, and when I try to imagine myself in that situation, I can only think that I would want to err on the side of caution, if you will, when making such a potentially far reaching choice for my child. What if I throw bio-dad out and deprive my kid of all the possibilities for enrichment that could go along with this relationship? Life is short, what if I throw bio-dad out and my child never gets to know his paternal grandparents, what if they were worth knowing…? (Really stretching here, again, who knows what really went on in the case in the OP) One would hope that the decision was made with everyone’s ultimate best interest in mind.
Excellent point and actually not that petty when you consider: If the adults in any given situation are not reasonable happy or content, it seems to exponentially cut down on the children’s chances of being the same. Believe me, as a parent I would definitely like to avoid difficult situations (and how!) But well, life, you know.
I’m not sure that there’s a correct answer here except that it seems to me that bio-parents, if they are willing, and capable, and have any chance of being a positive in the child’s life have the right to involvement in the life that they are responsible for bringing into the world. Even the courts (maybe not the best example, but bear with me) will give bio-parents chance after chance after chance, in often shitty and abusive situations, to become a positive force in their offspring’s life.
I couldn’t agree with you more, that some things should not be told to kids of a certain age and they don’t require strict, unthinking honesty in every situation. This situation, IMO, would not be one of those, but I completely agree that it is a very tough, emotional situation.
Sorry, it does say “they contacted him for medical reasons” in the OP but it still seems likely to me that the mother also had emotional reasons. Obviously, I can’t know this for sure.
I’m not really addressing the question of “bugging out” but the more hypothetical question (in this scenario) of introducing the bio-dad to the son in the first place (who apparently didn’t know the son existed).
per
"Three years later, she and her husband contact the guy and inform him that he has a two-year-old son. "
I didn’t hear the episode, but, astro, it looks like you’re reading a lot into the mother’s motivations here. I don’t see where she initiated the relationship between bio-dad and child in order to have them connect, or in order to somehow renew her relationship with bio-dad. Maybe she did have some underlying reason–we don’t know from the op–but as a mother myself, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned about my child’s medical history. My husband is adopted, and I sincerely wish we knew something–anything–about his history, especially when we had children of our own. If I could have tracked down his bio family, you can bet I would have.
And this:
**
is a pretty broad generalization, and I’m not at all convinced that it’s an accurate one. Although, considering that women are generally more likely than men to be the custodial parent, I’d expect that more women would request medical history information than men.
What if a mother had phoned in asking if she should inform an unsuspecting bio-dad that he had a child? Then we’d be coming at this from a completely different angle, and would be examining a seemingly contrary set of questions: does this man have a right to know about his bio child? does he have a right to be involved in his child’s life? is he responsible for support or other expenses? etc. I can’t imagine that many folks would opine that the bio-dad had no rights in the situation.
I think it’s a workable situation, IF all parents are on the same page. Amicably divorced couples (though they may be few and far between) do it all the time, with kids of all ages. Things could go awry, of course, but it looks like that’s a possibility in any of the possible outcomes. I’d hate to think that this dad would just bug out, and see the child spend his life wondering just what the helll happened. And then, when he finds out good ol’ Uncle Bob is really his bio-dad, the emotional impact could be enormous and devastating, because he would almost undoubtedly interpret his leaving as abandonment.
Given the present circumstances, I too would advise the bio-dad to “bug out”. To tell a two year old that he has two daddys at this stage can critically affect the nuclear family dynamic. I can see no good to come of it with a great potential to erode the father son relationship of the de facto father. At some point of course when the child is a little older it would be advisable for the de facto parents to reveal the truth.
On the other hand, I would not as Esprix paraphrased " to walk away and never see that child again". That would have negative implications in the future. Are you sure that that is what Dr Laura meant Esprix?
I wouldn’t advise trying to inform the 2 yo either, actually. Developmentally, he probably isn’t ready to process information like that. But I also don’t feel that the bio-dad needs to be removed completely from the situation, especially considering that he is already involved with the son. He could be a part of the child’s life without being known as “my other Daddy” just as any non-immediate relative is.
The real issue is whether or not these three parents can maintain civil, respectful relationships with their roles clearly defined as to who the authority figures are and who makes the decisions about the child’s welfare, activities, etc. If they can do that, they have a whole lifetime to figure out how to explain the relationship to Junior. Consulting a real child psychologist wouldn’t be a bad idea, if they continue to have concerns.
IMHO, the best thing to do here is to (wait for it) tell the kid that yes, he has two daddies. Not later in life, but as soon as he can understand the concept.
He’s young. He will accept this. He will have NO reason to think it’s unusual. One daddy lives with them because he’s married to mommy and the other daddy comes to see him when he can.
I grew up with a girl who had step-siblings 20 years older than her and step-nieces and nephews in the grade below her, at the same school. To her, it was a normal situation, though to most of us it’s a bit strange. I don’t claim this is the same situation, but there are parallels, I think.
These things happen - I think the adults in this situation are letting their own preconceptions of a ‘family unit’ taint their opinions. The kid isn’t going to be confused by this because there is nothing for him to compare it to.
I agree that this could cause a problem over time if someone ‘misbehaves’, but it’s about as likely that mom and step-dad will divorce as it is that bio-dad will become disinterested. Either one would be divisive and painful for the child.
Well told, Venoma. I wouldn’t attempt to explain anything beyond Sesame Street to a 2 year old. But a child from a divorce situation would be going through exactly this scenario. The only difference is that the bio parents weren’t married to each other. Actually, this isn’t a far-fetched situation at all. Leave it to Dr. Laura to turn it into a psycho-circus. I forget which of our posters around here was raised by his gay dad and his partner. He had no problem with it at all. And he still saw his mom. Weird doesn’t fuck up a kid’s head; “mean” does. The kid will be fine in this scenario.
I don’t know what the best advice is, but I do know that this is a strawman.
Dr. Laura isn’t calling for the woman to push the father out of the child’s life. She’s calling for the bio dad to willingly walk away. There’s a difference.
