How Accurate is Genetic Testing 23 and Me?

[Memorymakerfor4]

Makes sense. So, the condition of anonymity is only true for the adoption agency and can be bypassed by other family members that subscribe to 23 & Me (or similar services). I don't like it one bit.

That's exactly what happened to us. She made contact with an aunt, then found relations through Facebook. I got a friend request before I had any idea what had happened.

 

[NYCgrrl]

it. FIL unknowingly got a girlfriend pregnant before marriage and the baby was adopted out in secret.

do not like that confidentiality has basically been blown to pieces here.

As related it sounds like there were confidentiality problems from the onset.
I hope your family works this situation out as it seems to be affecting all relationships.

 

[kdonnel]

Agree the adoption agency really does not come into play at all.

Two people shared their DNA - my issue is all the folks in the family that did not and get this thrust upon them without any real choice.

That is what happened in my family example.

The woman that gave up the child nearly 60 years ago did not share her DNA.

But one of her brothers did, and so did a few slightly more distant family members. Together with the 23andMe report and some time on Facebook the long lost child thought she had found her mother in her mother's sister. She was close but not quite right but close enough that her mother's identity was found.

 

[tony67]

That is what happened in my family example.

The woman that gave up the child nearly 60 years ago did not share her DNA.

But one of her brothers did, and so did a few slightly more distant family members. Together with the 23andMe report and some time on Facebook the long lost child thought she had found her mother in her mother's sister. She was close but not quite right but close enough that her mother's identity was found.

Its a tough one no doubt.

The niece that we met was really only interested in one thing - health info - I can see why she might want that.

Even when there was a match and the family member reached out to her though the service (however that's done) - she ignored it for a bit. She was not sure she wanted to get involved in it.
So from both sides it can be a tough thing.

 

[bdrex28]

Makes sense. So, the condition of anonymity is only true for the adoption agency and can be bypassed by other family members that subscribe to 23 & Me (or similar services). I don't like it one bit.

As mentioned by others, it's the adoption agency that gave the anonymity.

If you or others that subscribe to 23 & me and opt in then it's you or them that are agreeing to be matched. I would say it's semantics if it's bypassing the adoption agency, but I believe they are two totally separate deals.

 

[tzolkin]

But couldn't someone make the case that 23 & Me should be held liable since they didn't cross-check the adoption agencies database thereby triggering a flag?

Why would they be held liable or need to check adoption agency databases? They are not releasing any confidential information regarding an adoption. They are simply giving people their own DNA test results. Why would the birth parents' desire for anonymity supersede the child's right to their own genetic information?

There have been many moral/ethical issues with closed adoption practices over the years, and this is just one. I think only 5% of modern adoptions are closed, so most people now do not expect complete anonymity.

Two people shared their DNA - my issue is all the folks in the family that did not and get this thrust upon them without any real choice.

I understand that it may be a shock or cause issues (especially if there was infidelity involved), but I don't see how that's the child's fault. They did not choose the biological parents they have or how those parents chose to take responsibility or not-- that was thrust upon them and they have been dealing with it for their entire life. It always seems in these situations that people are more upset with the child for reaching out than they are with their family member's involvement and I just find it odd. I can't fathom being angry at anyone who may reach out looking for answers about their family history or connection.


I wonder if it's a generational thing. I think older generations tend to have a higher expectation of privacy or anonymity regarding things they did when they were younger, but the younger generations do not. Perhaps it was the greater level of shame and ostracism they potentially faced, so they are much more fearful of their "secrets" coming to light? Or maybe it's just with all the information we have available now (internet, DNA, etc) that younger people just assume that the truth will come out sooner or later so they are less concerned.

 

[bdrex28]

Why would they be held liable or need to check adoption agency databases? They are not releasing any confidential information regarding an adoption. They are simply giving people their own DNA test results. Why would the birth parents' desire for anonymity supersede the child's right to their own genetic information?

There have been many moral/ethical issues with closed adoption practices over the years, and this is just one. I think only 5% of modern adoptions are closed, so most people now do not expect complete anonymity.


I understand that it may be a shock or cause issues (especially if there was infidelity involved), but I don't see how that's the child's fault. They did not choose the biological parents they have or how those parents chose to take responsibility or not-- that was thrust upon them and they have been dealing with it for their entire life. It always seems in these situations that people are more upset with the child for reaching out than they are with their family member's involvement and I just find it odd. I can't fathom being angry at anyone who may reach out looking for answers about their family history or connection.


I wonder if it's a generational thing. I think older generations tend to have a higher expectation of privacy or anonymity regarding things they did when they were younger, but the younger generations do not. Perhaps it was the greater level of shame and ostracism they potentially faced, so they are much more fearful of their "secrets" coming to light? Or maybe it's just with all the information we have available now (internet, DNA, etc) that younger people just assume that the truth will come out sooner or later so they are less concerned.

Reminds me of the quote from Harper Lee in To Kill a Mockingbird:

"You can choose your friends but you sho' can't choose your family, an' they're still kin to you no matter whether you acknowledge 'em or not, and it makes you look right silly when you don't"

 

[tvguy]

I do not like that confidentiality has basically been blown to pieces here. I expect there to be regulation here someday, but not before a lot of damage has been done.

That will be nearly impossible. How do you decide whose rights have priority? The parent promised secrecy, or the child who may need their DNA history due to a potentially fatal health condition that has been passed on? As has been mentioned, in many case the DNA technology did not exist when their agreements were signed, and the adoption agency is not in any way involved in the identity of the biological parent being revealed. They don't even had the DNA information to cross check.
It all can important information to someone to have because often family folklore AND information published in obits ae just plain wrong. At least that is what I have discovered with my family, and little to none of that discovery came from my DNA.

 

[tony67]

I understand that it may be a shock or cause issues (especially if there was infidelity involved), but I don't see how that's the child's fault. They did not choose the biological parents they have or how those parents chose to take responsibility or not-- that was thrust upon them and they have been dealing with it for their entire life. It always seems in these situations that people are more upset with the child for reaching out than they are with their family member's involvement and I just find it odd. I can't fathom being angry at anyone who may reach out looking for answers about their family history or connection.

I have no issues with her at all - like I said we actually liked her and she was very nice. She pretty much has an open invite if she is in town - we have been nothing than nice to her and still speak to her on occasion.

That said just because a sister who we had no real relationship with had kids and gave them up does not mean that we now have to deal with it. I will say now that we know about this it does explain a lot about why she was the way she was.

My issue is with the family member that pushes it on all of us because of her beliefs. Also pushed it on this woman somewhat because of her beliefs. Reached out to her several times before she finally did respond. Also continues to push it on this woman when its a bit obvious she is not interested and has her own stuff and family to deal with.
She also still continues to look for people who are related regardless of what the rest of the family wants.

To be honest she does not put this much effort into the 40 or 50 (I don't even know) nieces and nephews we know about. She has what she needs from them TBH.

 

[tony67]

That will be nearly impossible. How do you decide whose rights have priority? The parent promised secrecy, or the child who may need their DNA history due to a potentially fatal health condition that has been passed on? As has been mentioned, in many case the DNA technology did not exist when their agreements were signed, and the adoption agency is not in any way involved in the identity of the biological parent being revealed. They don't even had the DNA information to cross check.

Yeah - cats out of the bag at this point and people are agreeing to the terms of service when they share the DNA for better or worse.

 

[tvguy]

And sometimes no DNA test is needed. A friend's boss......who was 85 at the time........got a call from a 67 year old guy who said "I might be your son, according to family folklore". He told him who his mother was, and that he had been put up for adoption, and said he would like to meet him. As my friend put it, there was NO question of paternity when this guy walked into the office. He could have been her boss's twin brother. A child he had no idea existed. And his wife had no issues with this as the relationship that produced this child happened 30 years before she even met him.

 

[Memorymakerfor4]

That will be nearly impossible. How do you decide whose rights have priority? The parent promised secrecy, or the child who may need their DNA history due to a potentially fatal health condition that has been passed on? As has been mentioned, in many case the DNA technology did not exist when their agreements were signed, and the adoption agency is not in any way involved in the identity of the biological parent being revealed. They don't even had the DNA information to cross check.
It all can important information to someone to have because often family folklore AND information published in obits ae just plain wrong. At least that is what I have discovered with my family, and little to none of that discovery came from my DNA.

You’re probably right that it would be very hard to regulate. It is very heavily skewed toward the seeker though. It’s unfortunate the way it rolled out because of the choices that other relations made but you can’t legislate that. For what it’s worth, FIL has been very stand up about this and has tried to make a connection with her. My distaste for all of this comes from watching the emotional pain it’s caused.

 

[tvguy]

You’re probably right that it would be very hard to regulate. It is very heavily skewed toward the seeker though. It’s unfortunate the way it rolled out because of the choices that other relations made but you can’t legislate that. For what it’s worth, FIL has been very stand up about this and has tried to make a connection with her. My distaste for all of this comes from watching the emotional pain it’s caused.

It is interesting what may have been a brief interaction decades ago, can have such huge impacts on families. But at least for me, DNA testing shows just how common those situations really are.

 

[loves to dive]

The actual DNA is accurate, the relationship can be a tad off. I have Ancestry and my brother has done it as well. He does indeed show up as my brother but with slightly different ethnicity results, which is usual with the whole male/female genetic mess. His daughters have also done it and show up as "Close family-1st cousin". Meaning they could be nieces, could be first cousins. I have also connected via email with 2 different 1st cousins I didn't know I had. One knew her father's name but never met him (my Daddy's brother) the other didn't but her other half sister is a professional genealogist and figured it out (same uncle). I knew of two other kids of his, just via the old fashioned way. A son posted on a town board looking for his dad, he knew his name and his mother's name and where he was from. Another actually knew his dad and our grandmother's name and connected with out grandmother (he didn't know where his dad was). I'm guessing there are more than those four out there. There is another person on Ancestry who shows as a first or second cousin that could be related to them or not his tree isn't big enough for me to trace. I know every one of my aunt's and uncles (never met the missing guy but know about him) and all my great aunt's and uncles and their kids. It's possible this guy that I can't trace is a son of a great aunt or uncle's kid. It's that kind of family. Ancestry will take a stab as to which parent of yours side they connect to but if you have any family members in the distant past that married cousins it can get wonky. My Mama and Daddy share something like 9 x great grandparents so that doesn't help.

 

[Moliphino]

The actual DNA is accurate, the relationship can be a tad off. I have Ancestry and my brother has done it as well. He does indeed show up as my brother but with slightly different ethnicity results, which is usual with the whole male/female genetic mess. His daughters have also done it and show up as "Close family-1st cousin". Meaning they could be nieces, could be first cousins. I have also connected via email with 2 different 1st cousins I didn't know I had. One knew her father's name but never met him (my Daddy's brother) the other didn't but her other half sister is a professional genealogist and figured it out (same uncle). I knew of two other kids of his, just via the old fashioned way. A son posted on a town board looking for his dad, he knew his name and his mother's name and where he was from. Another actually knew his dad and our grandmother's name and connected with out grandmother (he didn't know where his dad was). I'm guessing there are more than those four out there. There is another person on Ancestry who shows as a first or second cousin that could be related to them or not his tree isn't big enough for me to trace. I know every one of my aunt's and uncles (never met the missing guy but know about him) and all my great aunt's and uncles and their kids. It's possible this guy that I can't trace is a son of a great aunt or uncle's kid. It's that kind of family. Ancestry will take a stab as to which parent of yours side they connect to but if you have any family members in the distant past that married cousins it can get wonky. My Mama and Daddy share something like 9 x great grandparents so that doesn't help.

I had some relatives showing up closer than they should by family tree. Then I remembered that at my great-grandparent level I had two sisters who married two brothers (great-grandmother's sister married great-grandfather's brother). So my grandmother had a few double cousins.

 

[jo-jo]

How does all this work in the report? Are names mentioned? Does 23 and me say you have a better than 60% chance of being related to James Doe in Ohio, Jane Smith in New York and John Jones in Texas?

I'm not aware of anyone who has done this test.

 

[Moliphino]

How does all this work in the report? Are names mentioned? Does 23 and me say you have a better than 60% chance of being related to James Doe in Ohio, Jane Smith in New York and John Jones in Texas?

I'm not aware of anyone who has done this test.

It gives exact percentages. I can see I share 12.49% DNA with one cousin, 10.36% with another cousin, and 9.48% with another cousin, for example.
Some people don't show their whole names. I share 0.95% DNA with "CO", estimated to be a 3rd to 4th cousin on my mom's side.
Some people don't share at all. I know one of my uncles has done the test, but his account is set to private so I don't see him in my list of DNA relatives.

 

[HopperFan]

I do Ancestry for me, DH, StepDad, SIL ... and I have never done DNA, never will.

Unsolicited contacts don't always have positive results ...

It's not always a happy ending, and you can not force one.

We have adults who knew they were adopted, and their biological sources. Either-or might be looking for the other but it doesn't mean the one being hunted is interested in contact.

We have adults who find out they were adopted by DNA, potentially causing great permanent damage to them and their family dynamic. It could be all that damage is done for nothing if the biological sources are not interested.

We have adults who gave up children for adoption and with DNA can hunt them down. This perhaps can cause damage to the adopted child/family.

We have fathers who never knew they were not a biological Dad, and a child who didn't know Dad wasn't their biological source. That news could shatter a marriage and family. Maybe two.

I know adopted adults who have zero interest in their biological source, they don't want to be found. Their parents are enough for them.

DNA has now bypassed the privacy of sperm donors, egg donors, embryo donors ... the fallout could have an impact on those processes, and they may become harder to do and much more expensive.

There is no right or wrong opinion on this because it varies with every single person, every single point of view, every single family dynamic .... for some it will have a happy ending, for some it will not.

I understand that it may be a shock or cause issues (especially if there was infidelity involved), but I don't see how that's the child's fault. They did not choose the biological parents they have or how those parents chose to take responsibility or not-- that was thrust upon them and they have been dealing with it for their entire life. It always seems in these situations that people are more upset with the child for reaching out than they are with their family member's involvement and I just find it odd. I can't fathom being angry at anyone who may reach out looking for answers about their family history or connection.

I don't think the child (assuming adult now) has any more rights than any of the biological relatives.

Reminds me of the quote from Harper Lee in To Kill a Mockingbird:

"You can choose your friends but you sho' can't choose your family, an' they're still kin to you no matter whether you acknowledge 'em or not, and it makes you look right silly when you don't"

That is one perspective but having blood relations doesn't mean a positive relationship or any desire to remain in contact. It doesn't mean we want to meet new ones. I am very close to DH extended family. They are my family by choice. While I keep in touch with a few of mine, most I have no relationship with. We grew up apart, raised different, live far away and have nothing in common. I have friends that would be there for me faster than most family, and me the same for them.

The quote, in the context of DNA, also diminishes the the bond and family relationship with adopted children and their parents. They are family!