My Sibling Was Abused as a Baby. Should I Share What I Saw?

When I was a kid, my parents severely beat a sibling. It was a single incident that nobody else witnessed. My sister was only a child, but the incident was thought to be due to falling. It was many years ago that this happened.

I’ve considered whether it would be appropriate to share my knowledge. My parents suffer immense guilt. However, I’m not sure if revealing will bring relief or shame. For my younger sibling, I’m wondering if disclosure could provide a solution to their anxiety concerns.

I must wait until our parent has gone away before sharing my knowledge. My sibling will have cause to resent me for staying until there is no option to talk with our parents. — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

I’m going to assume you’re significantly older than your sister and that you witnessed precisely what you remembered being able to see. The first thing to consider is what your confession’s results will most likely result in. If this injury is the cause of the development of a chronic anxiety disorder, I’m not sure that those conditions have “answers.” In midcentury, psychological thrillers such as “Spellbound,” uncovering a long-buried truth could end the disease. Still, the evidence from clinical studies doesn’t offer guarantees of this kind.

What we’re sure about is that this news can disrupt your family relations. There will be accusations along with anger and sadness. You’ll have to explain to your child why you’ve kept this from yourself over the past decades. Your parents (if you don’t anticipate your parent’s death) could remember the incident differently from how you recall it, or maybe not at all. Your sibling could become forever separated from your parents. In addition, your parents might convince your sister that you’re not honest, and both may be disengaged from each other. While adverse effects, no matter what the particulars, are very likely, the positive results you have mentioned — easing the shame of your parents and reducing anxiety in your child– are purely speculation. If all you cared about was the well-being and well-being of your loved ones, your expected results aren’t a good reason to reveal the details you have learned.

However, you could argue that the truth needs to be made public, as your child has the right to know what transpired, and also because you and your parents must acknowledge the incident and apologize for the abuse and the silence. I believe in having lives in sync with reality. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s beneficial to have the possibility of confronting the most critical aspects of our lives even if it doesn’t make you happier.

The case isn’t based on your theories about the advantages the disclosure will bring. It’s about the rights your sibling is entitled to. If you genuinely believe that your child has the right to know everything you have learned, don’t delay until your parent is gone, as you’ll have denied your child the chance to confront this parent and your parent with the opportunity to discuss what transpired.

I’ll concede that your sister’s right to this truth is a substantial aspect to consider. However, regarding what you think is a one-time event, which occurred many years ago, your primary concern should be to do what is best for your child. Make sure you are as clear regarding this matter as you can. If you insist on disclosure, even if the information will cause distress in the long term, it could be a violation of the old principle of fiat justice, ruat caelum -Let justice prevail regardless of the sky falling. I’m afraid that could be considered a type of moral zeal.

From the Ethicist:

I’m unsure if you can draw reliable conclusions regarding your partner’s or your children’s health. Maybe your partner’s father or uncle smoked heavy cigarettes, and he used to be, and their smoking increased the rate at which they died. The medical treatment for heart health and fitness has, in every instance, improved in the past few years; it will continue to advance as your children become adults.

Smokers die, generally, ten years more quickly than nonsmokers. Those who quit smoking at age 50 will get six years back in a lifetime. According to the tables for actuarial purposes, the children you may have will likely be grown-up before losing their father.

However, if you are concerned, you may want to talk — in conjunction with an expert in genetic counseling. As they say, being a parent together is best done in partnership. Both of you must discuss openly any concerns and hopes you have.

Readers Respond

The question of the week was submitted by one of our readers whose mother had told all of her children who were adults about a clause in her will that stated they would not inherit in the event of marriage to someone who wasn’t acknowledged as Jewish by the or her local Rabbinate. The letter writer wrote: “I’ve since married someone who is being a Jew So the clause isn’t applicable to me. However, I do have three older siblings that are not religious and are not married. … Does she have legally entitled to the codicil? Also, to have told our readers about the codicil? ?”

In his response, the Ethicist pointed out: “What your mother and her husband are preparing to do, in the event that it occurs does not conform to many rabbinic ideas regarding inheritance. An Judaic scholar I spoke to confirms the traditional Talmudic Tradition of Halakha or Jewish law, that is revered in those in the Orthodox Union, holds that the apostates aren’t denied the right of inheritance. … Who we marry is dependent on us. Parents can express their opinions but coercion is not a good idea. Do threats to deprive an individual of a significant inheritance constitute coercion? Different interpretations of coercion may be different regarding this. However, it’s not enough to be comfortable.” (Reread here for the complete question and the answer. )

In this instance, the attempt to “control from the grave” is a mistake for parents and comes with the disadvantage of influencing their children’s lives today. If a discussion with a rabbi doesn’t prove fruitful, the kids can be equally divided in their time of need and be an excellent example for the excluded siblings. — Caroline

To prevent this, the letter writer could split the inheritance fairly with their children. The letter writer can assure the children that they can marry anyone they want without worrying about the legal documents. Parents can do whatever they like, using their money ethically or not, but the writer is not obligated to carry on the wrong once they have passed away. — Nicole

The response of the Ethicist is comprehensive, but it misses an aspect. Although it could be a matter of parents’ control, everyone needs to know this strategy to help with financial and career planning. If you marry a non-Jew and go through life believing the cushion is there to rest in the later years but to find out that there’s not, it is just as devastating as not pursuing one’s own heart when it comes to marrying. — Diane

Since my first year as an adult, I realized that any earnings made by me and my spouse equally belonged to our children. Contrary to what mom thinks, money isn’t “hers” but belongs to her and her family equally. — Neil

The response of the Ethicist was rational and peaceful. Allow me to share a different view. What a sad, sexist way to separate your family. I’m not buying it as “an expression of love” for one second. It’s nothing more than an effort to control children who can lead the way they want to live. The mother would not have revealed the incident to them if it weren’t. The writer of the letter can attempt to convince the mom of guilt over the mistake or divide it with them once she dies. — Ruth