Introduction

The exploration of family secrecy has garnered significant attention in the existing literature; however, a critical gap remains in understanding how childhood family secrets impact the later lives and relationships of adult children, particularly from a systemic and relational perspective. Family secrets, defined as the deliberate concealment of information by one or more members of a family who are affected by it (Rober et al., 2012; Vangelisti & Caughlin, 1997), are prevalent across various aspects of family life (Berger & Paul, 2008). These secrets often arise from motivations such as fear or shame and serve purposes ranging from protection to deception or control (Imber-Black, 1998). Some secrets are helpful in certain familial contexts, such as the secrets teenagers keep from their parents as they are forming their own identities and ‘differentiating the self’ (Bowen, 1978), or to distinguish the boundaries between a parent and a child - these are termed essential secrets (Imber-Black, 1998). However, family secrets that are toxic or dangerous are said to possibly implicate a dysfunction in the family dynamic or cause harm to some family members (Berger & Paul, 2008; Imber-Black, 1998; Selvini, 1997). From a systemic perspective, the study of family secrets reveals crucial insights into familial communication patterns. Rober et al. (2012) highlight how family secrecy exposes the dialectical tension between disclosed and undisclosed matters, emphasising the complexity of familial interactions.

This study was conducted in Malta - a densely populated European microstate of just 316 km² with a growing population exceeding 540,000. In this context, family secrecy functions as a key social mechanism, shaping both interpersonal and cultural expectations. Within such close-knit communities, where reputation and tradition hold significant weight, the withholding of personal or sensitive information serves to protect familial image and cohesion. Drawing on Sultana and Baldacchino’s (1994) notion of the “microstate behaviour syndrome,” this tendency reflects a broader resistance to exposing vulnerability in a context where anonymity is limited. Despite its social relevance, family secrecy remains an underexplored lens through which to understand the complex dynamics of Maltese family life.

This paper focuses specifically on one finding from a larger grounded theory study (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025) on the presence of family secrecy in childhood, that is, the role of family secrets as significant entry points into complex relational dynamics. While the broader study explored multiple dimensions of secrecy and its effects, this article examines in depth how an exploration of secrets experienced in childhood help reveal adult children’s perceptions of family functioning, communication, attachment, and relational roles, opening several themes and issues experienced by the participants and their families. Previous research has examined typologies of family secrets, (Berger & Paul, 2008; Imber-Black, 1998; Rober et al., 2012), reasons for concealment or disclosure (Imber-Black, 1998), and the effects of secrecy on children (Desplyere & Rober, 2020; Helimaki et al., 2021; Rober, 2017; Rober et al., 2012), yet there is limited understanding of how secrets experienced in childhood continue to shape adult children’s perceptions of family functioning and relational patterns. Focusing on this specific aspect allows for the examination of how secrecy influences communication, attachment, and relational roles within families, highlighting its implications for therapeutic practice (Afifi et al., 2015; Crittenden et al., 2014). By examining how secrets illuminate and influence family relationships, this paper advocates for the creation of safe therapeutic spaces for disclosure or, where disclosure is not feasible, the careful exploration of the emotional weight of family secrecy. In doing so, it seeks to offer a distinct perspective on the challenges and opportunities that family secrets present in therapy.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in the integration of Family Systems Theory and Attachment Theory, providing a robust foundation for examining the complexity of the dynamics that family secrets reveal within and outside therapeutic contexts. Family Systems Theory, as articulated by Bowen (1978), views the family as an interconnected emotional unit, where the interactions and roles of family members are shaped by multigenerational transmission processes and the need for homeostasis. This theory highlights the significance of circular causation and feedback loops in understanding family functioning, where issues such as secrecy are not the result of linear cause-and-effect relationships but are instead rooted in the complex, interactional patterns among family members (Bateson & Donaldson, 1991).

Complementing this, Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1988) provides insight into how the quality of caregiver-child relationships influences the development of secure or insecure attachment patterns, which in turn affect the propensity for secrecy within the family. Traumatic or negative experiences within these relationships can foster dysfunctional dynamics, such as role reversals or disorganised attachment, where secrets may become a mechanism for coping or control (Crittenden et al., 2014). Merrill and Afifi’s (2015) study involving 380 participants further substantiates this connection, demonstrating that individuals with insecure attachment styles (both anxious and avoidant) reported greater engagement in secrecy, more rumination, and stronger feelings of guilt surrounding secrets than securely attached individuals. This finding supports the notion that attachment security may act as a protective factor, reducing the need for secrecy as a relational coping strategy.

This framework offers an integrative lens through which to explore how secrets serve as entry points into the complex emotional and relational processes within families, making them critical elements in systemic therapy.

Review of the Literature

Definitions, Functions and Relational Impact of Family Secrets

The concept of ‘secret’ is rooted in the Latin term se-cernere, where ‘se’ means separation and ‘cernere’ signifies division, effectively capturing the notion of setting experiences or actions apart due to perceived shame or distress. This etymology exposes the human propensity to distance oneself from troubling or shameful experiences as a psychological defence mechanism (Termini, 2018). The proverbial “skeleton in the closet” is commonly used to signify hidden information that one or more family members intentionally conceal from other relatives and the outside world. While the term ‘secret’ often carries negative connotations, not all secrets are inherently harmful; it is postulated that some secrets may serve a functional role in maintaining interpersonal relationships (Vangelisti, 1994). Moreover, it is essential to distinguish between privacy and secrecy, as they may serve different purposes in human relations and interactions (Imber-Black, 1998). Whereas secrecy involves the deliberate act of concealing information, often due to fear of judgment, potential conflict, or social repercussions, privacy can be a natural and healthy aspect of relational functioning, allowing individuals to maintain autonomy and boundaries.

Secrets in families act like ‘magnets in family relationships, attracting some members whilst repelling others’ (Imber-Black, 2018, p. 1123). The creation, keeping or opening of family secrets may result in a reorganisation of family lives as alliances and triangles are formed, resulting in degrees of proximity and distance amongst different family members (Imber-Black, 1998, 2018). From a systemic perspective, Karpel (1980), a seminal figure in the early exploration of family secrets, identified the interplay between power, loyalty, protection, boundaries, and alliances in an analysis of the intricacies of relational systems and subsystems within couples and families.

Rober et al. (2012) argue that the notion of family secrecy has much to reveal about the complex nature of family communication, particularly relating to delicate family matters – a closer look at family interactions and conversations brings out the ‘dialectical tension between things told and other things left untold’ (pg. 530).

The Presence of Family Secrecy in Childhood and Adolescence

Children are rarely privy to toxic or dangerous family secrets – however, they may still sense there are things in the family that are not said from the silences and hesitations (Rober, 2017), forbidden topics (Helimaki et al., 2021), or missing pieces in the stories told by their families (Imber-Black, 2018). When children are raised in a climate of secrecy, they may feel compelled to invent stories and myths or develop beliefs about the way things appear, while they are trying to piece the incomplete information together to make sense of what may have actually happened (Imber-Black, 1998; Deslypere & Rober, 2020; Rober, 2017).

The presence of family secrecy in childhood often results in complex emotional experiences that have everlasting consequences, including the shaping of attachment patterns, disruption of family communication, creation of trust issues, and perpetuation of emotional fragmentation in individual and relational wellbeing (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025). Sela and Bat-Or (2023) used a phenomenological, art-based approach to explore the childhood experiences of adults raised in secretive environments. Their findings highlight a complex interplay of visibility and concealment, with participants describing an ambiguous reality that prevented them from forming an integrated life narrative. Similarly, Yarrow’s (2012) retrospective study on parentification in families burdened by traumatic secrets revealed that children often developed an early awareness of their parents’ concealed distress. Many experienced a push-pull dynamic, being simultaneously encouraged to notice and ignore the secret, leading to role reversals where they provided emotional or practical support. However, when parents eventually disclosed their trauma, it fostered relief, trust, and stronger family bonds.

Secrets as a Portal into Complex Family Dynamics

Rather than being merely passive occurrences, family secrets often function as active coping mechanisms in response to complex and challenging dynamics. The literature (see below) identifies a range of deeply personal and often taboo subjects that become family secrets. These concealed realities not only influence individual family members but also shape broader relational patterns, communication styles, and emotional bonds within the family system. Understanding these secrets provides valuable insight into the intricate, and often hidden, dimensions of family dynamics.

Child Sexual abuse, Loss and trauma, and Paternity Issues

Research on secrecy in child sexual abuse (CSA), particularly intrafamilial cases, highlights the pervasive silencing mechanisms driven by social taboos (Klebanov & Katz, 2023; Svedin et al., 2002). Secrecy within affected families fosters relational dysfunction, isolation, and the perpetuation of violence. Studies explore the complex dynamics of connection and disconnection, with Bass et al. (2006) identifying ‘collaborative secrecy’ in sibling incest, where abuse is reframed based on family cohesion and external perceptions.

Bornemisza et al. (2022) and Cain (2006) examine the transgenerational impact of family secrets and loss. The former explores bereaved children’s experiences, particularly following perinatal loss, revealing that sibling loss mirrors major family crises, fostering concealed narratives. Survivors describe their grief as life-altering, shaped by both explicit details and silences, while external communication often reinforces stigma, turning their experiences into ‘silenced stories.’ Cain (2006) investigates secrecy surrounding parental suicide, identifying recurring behavioural patterns in adult offspring, including overindulgence in parenting, dire expectations for their children, and shame management.

A body of research emphasises the evolving landscape surrounding the disclosure of genetic information. In a cross-sectional design study of 69 young adult donor offspring, Berger and Paul (2008) found that parents were perceived as avoiding the topic of donor assistance more than other issues, with mothers avoiding less than fathers. Crucially, parental topic avoidance was linked to poorer family functioning, while joint disclosure by parents was associated with stronger family functioning. In the case of children in foster care, one study also highlighted the perceived threat of stigma that is internalised by children who learn to mask their status of care and are thus silenced for fear of being bullied (Dansey et al., 2019).

Parental Illness and Infidelity

Murphy et al. (2017), and Cogan et al. (2005) specifically explored the repercussions of parental mental illness on family members, particularly children. The findings highlight that children often grapple with worry and confusion arising from partial information about their parent’s mental health, compounded by an awareness of social stigmas surrounding mental health issues. Children in such situations tend to forego seeking external support, resorting to non-productive coping strategies. In cases of chronic and life-threatening illnesses in a parent, as outlined by Imber-Black (2014), the ramifications of secrets and secret-keeping create a complex web of interactions, influencing the dynamics of proximity and distance within the family. Moreover, children sworn to secrecy regarding their parent’s chronic illness exhibited lower social competence and more externalizing problems (Tompkins, 2007). In this study, differential disclosure was associated with higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms in affected children.

Recent research highlights the profound impact of parental infidelity on individuals across different developmental stages. Lusterman (2005) emphasizes secrecy as a central aspect of this breach of trust, noting how boundary violations and direct involvement in the aftermath contribute to complex emotional trauma in children and adolescents. Kawar et al. (2019) examine the relational ethics of adult children who possess knowledge of parental infidelity, revealing a correlation between parental infidelity and lower scores on the Relational Ethics Scale (RES). These lower scores may signify problematic family relationships and challenges in romantic partnerships. Notably, the study underlines the emergence of destructive entitlement, intergenerational transmission of patterns involving secrecy, as well as legacies and loyalties that exert an influence on the manner in which individuals form and sustain relationships. These findings are corroborated by Salih and Chaudry’s (2023) study, wherein they also provide insights on adultification as a consequence (involving the premature assumption of emotional caregiving responsibilities and early awareness of a parent’s sexuality), alongside detachment, disconnection, and a pervasive sense of loss of self, resulting from the knowledge of parental infidelity. However, the researchers also highlight the positive effects of parental honesty and openness, suggesting that transparency can mitigate some of the psychological burdens associated with infidelity.

Systemic Practice, Family Therapy and Family Secrecy

In families where secrecy is prevalent, systemic therapeutic support may facilitate emotional exploration and understanding of family dynamics, which in turn could liberate adults, children and family units from pervasive and unhealthy cycles of suppression, confusion and disconnection (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025). Helimaki et al. (2021) suggest that in systemic family therapy, children strategically exhibit symptoms to divert attention from underlying ‘invisible constructions of secrets,’ influencing family dynamics marked by ambivalence and tension (p.96). In an autoethnographic study on family secrecy, Rober and Rosenblatt (2015) illuminate the dual nature of silence in family secrecy, recognising its potential for being both destructive and life-affirming, particularly in the context of clinical practice. Deslypere and Rober (2020) explore how therapists navigate the impact of family secrets, emphasising their substantial influence on children’s development and the creation of elaborate fantasies around hidden family matters. Moreover, while studying the use of family maps in therapy, Dumont (2008) cautions against pushing children into territories they may not be ready to navigate, especially when family secrets are involved.

Methodology

Research Design

This section outlines the research design and methodological approach employed in the qualitative study (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025) underpinning this paper. While the primary focus of this article is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the study itself, but rather to examine a specific finding - namely, the role of family secrets as ‘entry points’ into complex family dynamics - it is crucial to contextualise the data from which this insight emerged.

Situated within an interpretative and social constructionist paradigm, the qualitative inquiry sought to inductively generate meaning and knowledge by exploring participants’ perceptions and experiences of growing up in an environment of secrecy. The study primarily investigated how family secrets, silences, and disclosures during childhood shaped the life trajectories, relationships, and worldviews of adult children. For the purposes of this paper, the research question guiding the analysis is: In what ways,if any,do family secrets serve as entry points into complex family dynamics and hidden themes?

This original study adopted a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methodology to explore the impact of family secrets on childhood experiences, given the limited literature addressing this phenomenon. Rooted in Charmaz’s (2014) emphasis on inductive, comparative, and iterative analysis, CGT allowed for the development of a substantive theory emerging organically from participants’ narratives. This approach was particularly suited to investigating the multifaceted nature of family secrecy, enabling a deep exploration of its psychological and relational implications. Recognising the researcher’s role in meaning-making, CGT facilitated a co-constructive process between researcher and participants (Charmaz & Henwood, 2008), ensuring that insights were generated collaboratively.

Research Participants

Recruiting participants for a study on family secrets presented challenges due to the sensitive nature of the topic. However, the authors proceeded with a targeted approach, combining convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling methods. Participants were primarily recruited through systemic family therapists affiliated with a local association for family therapists, as well as through personal and professional networks. Eligible participants were adults (18 + years) of any gender who had experienced family secrecy in childhood. In all, seven participants took part in the study. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no remuneration or other form of compensation was offered for their time and contribution.

The participants, ranging in age from their early twenties to mid-fifties, represented a variety of personal backgrounds and family experiences. Their main family secrets encompassed diverse themes, including parental mental health issues, infidelity, financial difficulties, and hidden adoptions. Some participants described an overarching atmosphere of secrecy within their families rather than a single concealed event. The sample included five female and two male participants, with varying relationship statuses, reflecting a broad spectrum of lived experiences. These insights provided valuable perspectives on the impact of family secrecy on individuals across different life stages. Table 1 presents the demographics of the seven participants.]

Method of Data Collection: Interview Schedule

The table below (Table 2) illustrates a sample of questions asked during the semi-structured interview with adult children who had experienced family secrecy in their childhood. The schedule was designed to explore participants’ experiences of family secrecy during childhood and their perceived impact on family dynamics and adult life. The questions were organised into four main domains: background information, meaning and presence of family secrets, recollection of disclosure or discovery, and impact of family secrecy.

Data Collection and Analysis

The research process for the original study followed an iterative and comparative approach in line with Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT). Figure 1 illustrates the process of data collection and analysis. The semi-structured interview schedule was refined after initial interviews, ensuring a responsive and evolving data collection process. Seven participants took part in semi-structured, one-to-one interviews, allowing for an in-depth exploration of their perceptions and experiences of family secrecy. After reading the information letter and signing the consent form, participants chose a convenient mode, time, and location for their interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, with constant comparison occurring both within and across the data. Interviews were coded using in-vivo terms and gerunds (Charmaz, 2014) and analysed through constant comparison. In line with CGT, data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. Memo-writing played a key role in facilitating researcher reflexivity, enabling critical engagement with emerging categories. While participants could express themselves in either Maltese or English, English was chosen for line-by-line coding and subsequent analysis.

The two researchers worked simultaneously and collaboratively at every stage of the analysis, beginning with line-by-line coding, where each independently examined transcripts while discussing emerging concepts in real time. This process continued through focused, axial, and theoretical coding, with both researchers constantly comparing interpretations, challenging assumptions, and refining categories together. By the third interview, patterns, connections, similarities, and differences were emerging, which allowed for a deeper, more comprehensive analysis. Initial codes were organised and refined into focused and axial codes through colour coding and iterative discussions, ensuring a systematic and authentic process. Working side by side from the initial coding to the development of a substantive theory and model (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025), the researchers were able to co-construct a grounded understanding of family secrecy, maintaining rigour, transparency, and reflexivity throughout the study. Figure 2 presents an excerpt from the analysis of one interview with an illustration of the line-by-line coding, focused codes and memo writing.

In line with Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist grounded theory approach, trustworthiness in this study was established through reflexive, transparent, and systematic research practices. Credibility was enhanced by grounding analysis in participants’ own experiences and perceptions, using quotes to ensure interpretations reflected their experiences. The two researchers engaged in simultaneous coding, iterative discussions, and collaborative memoing, which supported reflexivity and the co-construction of meaning. An audit trail documenting coding decisions, analytical memos, and methodological choices was maintained to ensure transparency and confirmability. Rather than seeking broad generalisability, the study emphasised resonance in terms of the extent to which findings authentically capture participants’ experiences and illuminate the ways family secrecy functions as an entry point into complex relational dynamics. Reflexive attention to the researcher’s positionality throughout the study further strengthened the integrity and trustworthiness of the analytic process.

Ethical Considerations

Given the sensitive research topic and intensive interviewing, several ethical considerations were addressed before starting. Ethical clearance was obtained from the University’s Research Ethics Committee (UREC), focusing on consent, anonymity, confidentiality, data storage and dissemination, and protection from harm. Consent was secured from recruitment channels and participants, who read and signed consent forms before interviews. To ensure anonymity and confidentiality, participants’ names were pseudonymised, and identifiable information was excluded from transcripts. Data was stored on an encrypted, password-protected computer, with audio recordings deleted after transcription. Finally, to mitigate the risk of psychological harm related to triggering past trauma, the study exclusively involved adult participants reflecting on their childhood experiences, avoiding interviews with children. Participants were also debriefed and provided with a list of support services to access if participation evoked any traumatic memories requiring further processing.

Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity

The positionality of the research team is informed by shared personal and professional experiences. Both researchers were raised on a small island where secrecy is deeply embedded in the cultural fabric, shaping early understandings of family loyalty, relational boundaries, and hidden dynamics. They also have extensive professional experience working with children and families, fostering a child-centred perspective that recognises children as capable participants in family life (Corsaro, 2005; Malaguzzi, 1996).

Throughout the study, the two researchers engaged in ongoing reflexivity, tracking their thoughts, reflections, and shifts in perspective as data was collected and analysed. Their initial focus on how children may be burdened by family secrets was shaped by personal experiences and professional commitments to promoting children’s emotional well-being. However, engaging with participants’ diverse narratives, alongside collaborative discussions between the researchers revealed a wider range of experiences, including how silences and selective disclosure function within family systems. This reflexive process allowed the researchers to critically examine their own assumptions and acknowledge how their backgrounds and prior beliefs may have influenced the interpretation of findings. By reflecting together at each stage of the analysis, the researchers were able to co-construct an informed understanding of family secrecy as an entry point into complex family dynamics, maintaining awareness of their positionality while interpreting participants’ experiences.

Presentation & Discussion of the Findings

Informed by the research question: “In what ways, if any, do family secrets serve as entry points into complex family dynamics and hidden themes?”, this section first portrays the participants’ stories and experiences of family secrecy to provide a context for the ensuing analysis and discussion. The three categories that follow expand on one key finding from the original grounded study guiding this paper– namely that family secrets, silences, and disclosures encountered during childhood serve as pivotal elements in understanding complex family dynamics. They are presented as a blend of the participants’ accounts and the researchers’ interpretive analysis. Each category is grounded in the data, supported by illustrative quotes, while also being situated within existing literature to highlight points of convergence and divergence. In doing so, the authors critically engage with the data, debating their own deductions and conclusions, and reflecting on the ways in which family secrecy can open pathways into the internal worlds of individuals and the relational processes of families.

These three interconnected categories are presented and discussed, each capturing how participants experienced secrecy in childhood as an emotionally and relationally charged journey during their formative years. Guided by systemic and attachment theories, the presence of secrecy within the family is conceptualised as an emotional rollercoaster – a metaphor that encapsulates the unpredictable turns, emotional upheavals, and relational instability that marked their developmental trajectories (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025). As can be seen from the categories below, the individual voices and stories also reveal how, rather than isolated incidents, secrets become enmeshed with systemic family patterns including illness, infidelity, paternity issues, financial distress, and abuse.

An overview of the broader study, along with the emerging substantive theory and emotional rollercoaster model, is presented in a separate paper (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025), while the present article focuses specifically on the role of family secrets as entry points into complex family dynamics.

Participants’ Stories

Seven Lives, One Thread: Intertwining Stories of Family Secrecy

The stories shared by the seven participants are illustrated here to help the reader understand the emotional and relational weight that unified their life trajectories across time and relationships. Every narrative is like a tapestry of layered experience – each distinct in content, yet percolated with common themes of silence, ambivalence, loyalty, rupture, and resilience.

Simon grew up in a family where outward appearances suggested normalcy, but behind closed doors there was persistent abuse. After the birth of his younger siblings and the arrival of a stepfather, Simon’s home became increasingly unsafe and unpredictable for him, his mother, and his siblings. He experienced repeated physical violence, emotional cruelty, and favouritism that left him feeling isolated and targeted. His mother, overwhelmed by fear and denial, remained silent about the abuse, prioritising the family’s image while Simon endured harm and suffering in silence.

Vivian’s childhood was defined by both visible and invisible losses. Her mother passed away when she was very young, yet the grief was muffled, redirected and largely denied by those around her. She was encouraged – even orchestrated – to attach more closely to her father during her mother’s illness, and later to her father’s new wife – with little acknowledgement of the mother who came before. Vivian grew up suspended between two realities: the one presented to her, and the one she intuitively felt was incomplete.

Nina’s upbringing was a dance between hypervisibility and invisibility. Outwardly vibrant, she carried an inner world shaped by gaslighting, contradictions, and emotional distortion. She was told stories that didn’t make sense — to confess hatred she didn’t feel, to fear people she had no memory of. These imposed narratives created a cognitive dissonance that lingered well into adulthood.

Lisa developed her voice early — and paid for it. A perceptive and intuitive child, she was often punished for noticing too much. Her family upheld a façade of order and morality while hiding financial distress and emotional turbulence. Lisa recalled moments of being scapegoated for “asking too many questions,” and for challenging her parents’ efforts to conceal truths from each other and from the outside world.

Emma described her childhood as one of paradoxes: warmth and chaos, closeness and secrecy. As the eldest, she became the emotional container for her parents’ marital strife and moral contradictions — privy to secrets of infidelity, betrayal, and despair from an early age. She witnessed violence in her home, and absorbed adult realities before she was developmentally prepared to do so.

Raised by two parents who were largely present and attuned to his emotional needs, Brian stands out in this group for his relatively secure early attachment and warm family environment. Yet even in this setting, secrecy made its way in - subtly, through quiet omissions and coded behaviours around issues like inheritance and miscarriage in the extended family. Brian only began to question these silences in adulthood, when curiosity about generational patterns and family constellations led him to probe deeper.

Ylenia grew up in a home shadowed by emotional absence. Though her childhood included moments of joy, these were quickly overshadowed by her mother’s unacknowledged depression following the birth of her siblings. The silence around her mother’s illness left Ylenia confused, isolated, and prematurely responsible — a child who intuited something was wrong, yet was never invited into a conversation that validated her perceptions.

Categories: Entry Points into Complex Familial Dynamics

Sensing the Unspeakable: Growing Up in an Atmosphere of Secrecy

This first category aptly captures and describes the implicit knowing and early awareness of something being “off” in the family, described by participants as an intuitive or lingering feeling that seemed to be there even before they understood what was being hidden. That sense of secrecy was not always explicit; rather, it emerged in a space between what was seen and what was left unspoken, forming a backdrop to their childhoods. The participants’ recollections suggest that secrecy in childhood often did not begin with content, but more subtly with an atmosphere or perceptible emotional climate marked by ambivalence, ambiguity, withdrawal, or surveillance. For many, this atmosphere of not-knowing was internalised as unease or vigilance, forming the emotional backdrop of their childhoods.

Real-life stories became intertwined with this overarching sense of not-knowing – these include parental mental illness, loss and restructured families, violence and authoritarian parenting, and unspoken gendered expectations. Ylenia, for instance, recalls the shift in her mother following the birth of her twin siblings, attributing it retrospectively to an undiagnosed postpartum depression. “I think she must have been suffering … which she never acknowledged,” she reflects, noting how she pieced this together not through conversations but through observation. Vivian’s early years were similarly shaped by the unspoken: her mother’s illness and passing were shrouded in silence, and her grief was redirected through the integration into a reconstituted family system. Emma and Simon both evoke the emotional volatility of childhood marked by authoritarian parenting and violence, experiences that were never openly discussed, despite their profound impact. As Emma notes, “There are two sides to my childhood … one of fun, and the other one of fear.

The following passages, for instance, illustrate a shared experience for individuals growing up in families with inconsistent communication patterns and emotional dynamics. The participants experienced two polarities, describing a paradox in their earlier years - distortion of reality and silence on the one hand, and being burdened with secrets that are shared prematurely on the other hand. Developing a sensitivity to non-verbal cues and an intuition about emotional dynamics, Lisa and Emma describe how they would pick up cues about things that were not explicitly shared. There is also a clear dichotomy with certain topics being openly discussed, perhaps without considering the impact on the children involved, and instances of secrecy or distortion of information that would inevitably lead to confusion and distrust. The conflicting messages and mixed signals from adults were not easy to navigate, with both Lisa and Emma understanding they knew too much on the one hand, yet at the same feeling frustrated with the lack of consistency and honesty in communication.

I believe there were two extremes in my family – being intuitive and perceptive, there were moments in time where as a child I would be the one picking up things that were not said or lies that were being told. Then there were those moments where I would be the recipient and witness of intense emotions and stories that I firmly think would have been more suitably shared with an adult. (Lisa)

I do feel that I have been brought up in two polarities – on the one hand, there were things that were spoken too early about in front of us children by some adults … my parents would talk openly sometimes about other relatives, and I always wished I did not know so much about people in my family – it felt wrong somehow. On the other hand, some other things were kept hidden or were distorted, so that it created confusion in my mind as a child because things did not make sense in the context of what I already knew, with situations where I would know that the adults were certainly lying. (Emma)

Contrasting experiences during childhood transpire, with participants depicting moments of closeness and joy coexisting with unspoken tensions and confusion. As they grew older, they became more aware of these inconsistencies in adult behaviour. Yet, some participants experienced psychological or emotional fragmentation through the missing pieces in the stories told by their families (Imber-Black, 2018), and the creation of invisible rules and family myths (Bowen, 1978) which would help them make sense of and attune themselves to the emotional field and unspoken tensions. This emotional fragmentation – of living in what Sela and Bat-Or (2023) describe as a multi-layered tapestry of conflicting experiences – often resulted in profound internal dissonance.

“It was a very good childhood… but in actual fact, I did experience that on some levels. But on others, it was a terrible childhood.” — (Vivian).

“Nice memories of being a child… but they are all the time with a grey cloud around them. It was pretty heavy.” — (Nina).

Vivian’s memories of her mother’s illness were similarly fragmented. As a child, she sensed something significant was wrong but was discouraged from asking questions:

“I remember peeking through the bathroom door and seeing her remove her wig… I didn’t understand it was a wig. But I didn’t ask. Asking questions in our family was not done, even to this day.” — (Vivian).

These quotes illustrate what Minuchin (1974) might call “covert rules” — boundaries around knowledge that are never stated, yet rigidly enforced. The absence of open dialogue leaves children navigating their emotional realities in isolation. The impact of emotional fields in families is similarly pointed by Bowen (1978), suggesting that children absorb unspoken tensions long before they are fully formed as thoughts. Imber-Black (2018) puts forward the notion that children growing up in secretive climates often invent their own stories and family myths to fill in the gaps – strategies, that while adaptive, may fracture rather than integrate their understanding of the world.

While Brian’s narrative stands out as a testament to a nurturing and secure family environment, the stories of Ylenia, Vivian, Nina, Simon, Emma, and Lisa indicate a complex interplay between contrasting memories, themes of neglect and abuse, emotional turmoil, and the impact of family dynamics on individuals’ perceptions of reality. These stories reflect the legacy burdens of secrecy (Sinko, 2017), where what is left unspoken becomes inscribed in emotional memory, impacting how individuals relate to themselves and others. As Frijns et al. (2013) and Rober (2017) note, even when not directly told, children sense the presence of secrets through disrupted communication patterns, topic avoidance, and emotional withdrawal. Over time, these dynamics may lead children to internalise a sense of mistrust of others and themselves, a struggle which became visible across the participants’ stories particularly those who experienced a marked shift in family dynamics following loss, illness, or remarriage.

Emotional Role Reversals: Becoming the Keeper or the Fixer

A second category that percolated the participants’ stories was the tendency for them to become the secret-keeper, the caretaker, or protector within their families – often in ways that was developmentally premature and, consequently, burdensome on a psychological and emotional level. As children, most participants were expected to hold emotional space for adults or to manage family dynamics in ways they were not yet equipped to do. This dynamic is known as parentification or boundary inversion (Byng-Hall, 2008; Campbell et al., 2003). A defining feature of participants’ childhood experiences, these role reversals often shaped their adult identities, relational expectations and functioning. It is worth mentioning at this point that both emotional and instrumental parentification are usually associated with harmful outcomes, leading to developmental and relationship problems, with the instrumental type being regarded as potentially less problematic (Hooper, 2007).

The interviews revealed that five out of the seven participants were the eldest siblings in their families, with only Lisa and Simon being the middle children. Vivian was initially the only child from her parents’ marriage but became the elder sister from her father’s second marriage after the passing away of her birth mother. Nina, despite having a younger brother, often felt more akin to a younger sibling in behaviour, a sentiment echoed by her brother and others, and one that in many ways influenced the different role she took in her family from most of the other participants. As the eldest, they assumed roles of responsibility, self-reliance, and protection towards siblings and sometimes towards parents. Ylenia and Emma, in particular, took on very distinctive caregiving roles towards their younger siblings, potentially linked to their birth order – protecting and caring at both the physical and emotional level.

During their formative years, a process of reversed roles began to unfold in their families, with some participants actively seeking to care and protect family members, being themselves, their siblings, or their parents. In the absence of adults who could take on and stand accountable for their responsibilities, as children, participants made conscious or unconscious decisions to become a ‘parent’ for themselves, their siblings, and sometimes their parents. The psychological and emotional toll of such role reversal has been widely noted in the literature on parentification, with research showing that children who assume caregiving roles often struggle to develop a coherent sense of self outside of relational service (Yarrow, 2012). This was the case for most participants, except for Brian whose story is unique in this aspect. For most participants, but not for all, being the eldest seem to have impinged on taking on a parentified role. This meant growing up too soon, and for some most especially for Ylenia and Emma, it also meant they took on the task of raising their parents in more ways than one. Emma describes herself as being always seen as mature beyond her years, from her early childhood, whilst Ylenia reflects that:

My mother always behaved as if she were the child. Up till today, I do not see her as such as my mother because I am the one who keeps caring for her. Even if I had to confide in her about my struggles … it would simply fall on deaf ears. It was always like this, even as a child. (Ylenia)

Being burdened with family secrets by adults who see them as their confidantes is also part of this process of parentification. There is a sense of a lost childhood, of heavy burdens, of unfairness and injustice towards them as children and adolescence. Yet at the same time, as children, this could also act as a validating act, making them feel somewhat seen for their ability to listen, to keep secrets from others, leading to this sense of ambivalence as they tried to make sense of what was happening to them, both internally and externally. Emma’s story reinforces this theme, as she repeatedly found herself in a position to act as her parents’ emotional container in moments of distress. “There were many secrets I became privy to at a very young age … I was my parents’ confidante,” she recalled. Being prematurely exposed to adult concerns, particularly related to infidelity in her family, financial stress, and mental health issues, required participants like Emma and Lisa to engage in dialectical navigation of issues that are beyond their emotional maturity or grasp (Rober et al., 2012). As children, participants would engage in managing the tension between being drawn into secrets and knowing these disclosures were emotionally inappropriate or burdensome.

This dynamic of overexposure and under-protection often blurred boundaries between generations, creating a form of emotional entrapment for the participants, who received the direct or subtle message that they were expected to care for, support, protect, or absorb family members’ emotions while simultaneously being denied space for their own. Undoubtedly, this sense of responsibility, internalised by the participants at a young age, influenced their emerging identities, differentiation of the self, and their emotional worlds. The caregiving roles were rarely explicitly recognised within the family system; rather, they were encouraged through subtle cues, relational withdrawal or differential treatment from the adults who were meant to raise them and protect them.

Lisa’s story, for example, illustrates the way children are at times directed to manage the emotional states of adults, which adds confusion to the already overburdened child. In her case, despite being the middle child rather than the eldest yet mature beyond her years, she often took on the role of the mediator or translator between emotionally reactive or withholding parents or relatives. She recalls how she would be punished for “knowing too much” or “saying too much”, actions which often created paradoxical sensations between having a central emotional role in her family yet being then silenced when it came to her voice. Moreover, as Lisa tried to make sense of the repercussions of her family’s financial struggles, the secret of her father’s concealed debt further established her role as a container of family stress. This notion points to emotional triangulation where children are pulled into dyadic tensions to stabilise the family’s emotional field, which in turn helps alleviate anxiety in dyadic relationships (Bowen, 1978). In these families, where generational and relational boundaries are diffused, enmeshment may occur, with children becoming overinvolved in adults’ lives and relationships. As a result, there is little differentiation happening and the children’s emotional needs take a backseat role in favour of the family system’s stability (Minuchin, 1974). Furthermore, Imber-Black (1998, 2018) postulates that, in families governed by secrecy, the most emotionally attuned relatives or eldest children often adopt a protector, fixer or truth-buffer’s role.

The enduring nature of these emotional role reversals is reflected in the participants’ reflections on their adult lives, with several expressing a difficulty to remove themselves from the ‘caregiving’ or ‘helper’ identity, even in relationships that may become dysfunctional or maladaptive. On the other hand, there is also a conscious effort by some not to replicate their family scripts (Byng-Hall, 2008) – translated in a desire and a deep commitment to change the patterns in their parenting, protecting their own children from the role confusion they themselves experienced as children.

Secrets are tricky and children, especially children, should not be burdened with them. They should be raised in a climate of authenticity, honesty and transparency, but this does not mean there are no boundaries or limits to what a child should be exposed to – mindful, honest adults know what it is that is safe and healthy to share with a child and what is not. (Emma)

Living the Double Life: Secrecy, Shame, and Split Selves

Drawing from narratives provided by participants, the study points to the nuanced interplay between intra-familial family dynamics and external perceptions shaped by secrecy. In the process of exploring and uncovering the intricate ways in which families engage in a process of starting and maintaining secrets within and outside the family, it becomes evident that a web of lies, concealment, unspoken truths and silences with family members who fall within and outside the secret-bearing group is created and perpetuated. This, in turn, engenders stories of connection and disconnection, thus balancing proximity and distance in relationships impacted by one or more family secrets.

The stories narrated by the seven participants point to a dissonance between the image of family life projected to the outside world and the lives they experienced behind closed doors. The contradictions between the two worlds awakened a myriad of emotions, such as shame and confusion, often leading to deep psychological fragmentation. Within this dual existence, they were often asked — implicitly or explicitly — to maintain appearances, to preserve family images, or to perform roles that conflicted with their lived emotional truths, especially in such a close-knit society that is present in a small island stage such as Malta.

Imber-Black (2018) explores this through the notion of shared silences and secret-keeping, with family secrets acting as magnets, pulling some relatives into the inner circle while pushing others to the periphery. In this way, some members become bound together in shared silence, while emotional barriers are put up for others who are kept privy of the family secret. Some participants in this study learned to hide the more vulnerable, confused, or traumatised aspects of their self as both a coping mechanism and a protective factor. Rober and Rosenblatt (2015) indirectly explore the idea of the split self in their work on narrative inheritance, describing how secrecy and silence can distort internal coherence and compromise emotional authenticity across generations.

Emma’s story is a striking example of the emotional toll of living a double life – one shaped by the tension between things that are told and things that are kept hidden in families (Rober et al., 2012). On the surface, she grew up in a lively extended family, surrounded by aunts, uncles, cousins, and siblings, and often enjoyed outings and moments of family connection and warmth. Yet, beneath the surface lay conflict, secrecy, violence and betrayal. Her thoughts around the infidelity she observed or learned about, as well as the emotional volatility of some relatives including her parents, reveal the pain and burden experienced by children who know truths that are never acknowledged. In systemic terms, this reflects what Rober et al. (2012) describe to be a dialectical tension between what is told and what is left untold, seen as a core element in families marked by secrecy.

Ylenia was never able to discuss her mother’s undiagnosed depression with anyone, which left her feeling isolated and burdened by this awareness that remained openly unacknowledged by her family. She only found some form of consolation and support in an aunt’s efforts to make up for her mother’s negligence and lack of care towards her and her brothers. Yet she never openly discussed the ‘secret’ with anyone. Her story exemplifies the isolating effects of unacknowledged family secrecy. Simon suffered silently through an abusive and distressful childhood in a stepfamily environment that positioned him in many ways as the ‘black sheep’ in his family due to what his stepfather regarded to be a rebellious, disobedient, and ungrateful nature. He grappled with feelings of alienation and rejection throughout his childhood and was only able to find some form of validation and refuge later on in his adolescence when he mustered the courage to confide in a supportive family member who immediately took action and provided him with a secure space that enabled him to stop this cycle of negativity and abuse.

My mum wanted to tell the truth and to tell people in her family what was going on. But she was too scared of my stepfather, she always protected us as much as she could. She never went to her mum and told her what was going on. But then as we grew up she opened her eyes and realised she actually needed to do something about this. She realised this when I told her I am leaving the family home and staying in Malta with my aunty. (Simon)

Constrained by a perceived need to ‘keep up appearances’ and adhere to a rather strict moral code in her family, Vivian also confronts a family reality rife with hidden truths and distorted perceptions, both within their family unit and hidden from the outside world. Her experience brings out the insidious nature of family secrecy, perpetuating a façade of normalcy while concealing underlying tensions and conflicts. Lisa’s family was also affected by her parents’ efforts to hide important matters about their family from each other and from the outside world, denying and punishing her for her tendency to call out any detected lies or half-truths. Her story highlights the disruptive impact of family deception on individual autonomy and emotional well-being, as children who challenge the façade of family harmony find themselves being further ostracised and isolated.

I was very perceptive as a child, nothing would escape me – so while I was being raised in a culture where not only children, but even adults especially if they were women, would be expected to stay silent and follow the lead of a man, I was not that type of girl. I would be the one to challenge an adult if I felt they were not telling the truth. In my case, I would speak up. This was not met with grace from my family, because if you wanted to hide some stories from other family members and from the outside world, and your child was pushing for clarity, asking questions and calling out the hypocrisy and lies, it would position the child in an unfavourable place, right? (Lisa)

These accounts exemplify what Minuchin (1974) describes as incongruence in family realities, where rigid roles and covert rules characterise the familial system at the expense of open communication and flexibility in role-taking. The reasons may vary from family image preservation to stigma avoidance or protection from shame. Yet the result would often mean the suppression of one’s intuitive knowledge or the creation of dual identities. This aligns with studies such as Sela and Bat-Or (2023) that demonstrate how children often develop elaborate internal narratives to reconcile conflicting cues as a result of secrecy and topic avoidance.

Shame becomes a salient feature in the participants’ accounts. Hunter (2010) and Cain (2006) point out that shame is often inherited through silence – forming an integral and invisible part of what cannot be named. It is interesting to note that what created shame in most participants was not their own wrongdoing or behaviour, but the understanding of knowing or suspecting something they were not meant to know. This was particularly pervasive in families inflicted by issues such as infidelity, financial difficulties, and mental illness.

This category highlights the way secrecy operates in ways that fracture a child’s sense of self – not merely by withholding information but by creating a relational context in which authenticity becomes threatening. In several ways, the participants’ experiences reveal the emotional costs of being asked to stick to a family narrative that was in conflict with their internal reality or experience of the world they inhabited. Having said this, their stories also indicate a conscious and persistent effort for them to make meaning of these contradictions – reconciling the split between how things were portrayed publicly, and how things felt internally.

Clinical Implications

In view of some participants’ recognition and validation of the benefits of therapy to process the ebbs and flows of being raised in a culture of secrecy or in the shadow of a family secret, one can deduce a need for systemic therapists to cultivate safe spaces for disclosure, whilst remaining sensitive to the contradictions, uncertainties, and emotional hurdles that these individuals may bring to the therapeutic space. Recognising that disclosure is not always possible - particularly for children or adolescents who may fear punishment or feel a sense of disloyalty - systemic therapists can create space to explore the emotional burden of family secrets. This involves sensitively acknowledging the weight individuals and families bear in maintaining or questioning these patterns of silence. However, in situations involving abuse or violence, prioritising safety must take precedence, requiring immediate and protective intervention.

It is also important to note that secrecy may hold protective functions within families. For instance, concealing certain truths may initially serve to shield young members from distressing realities, or to maintain stability in contexts where disclosure could otherwise create further harm. Therapists may therefore approach family secrecy not only as a source of pain and rupture, but also as strategies that families sometimes employ, often for protection or survival intent. This stance helps avoid pathologising secrecy, while gently creating space to consider whether the costs of perpetuating silence outweigh its protective benefits. Disclosure of secrets can also become a therapeutic goal for individuals seeking to unburden themselves of longstanding silences or for families striving toward more openness and cohesion. Such exploration should not be forced nor rushed. Instead, it can be framed as a gradual process in which clients are supported to weigh up when, how, and to whom they may reveal sensitive information. For some, disclosure may happen within the therapy room itself, for others, the therapeutic work may focus on strengthening the individual or family’s ability to hold and process the secret without shame or isolation.

Clinical Vignette

A 19-year-old young man sought therapy after years of concealing his homosexuality from his parents, fearing rejection and the breakdown of family ties. For a long time, secrecy had served as a protective mechanism, allowing him to maintain the security of belonging and to avoid anticipated judgment. Within individual sessions, he explored the tension between wanting to live authentically and fearing the emotional consequences of disclosure. Supported by the therapist, he chose to invite his parents into family therapy as part of the disclosure process.

In the family sessions, the young man revealed his sexuality, bracing himself for disappointment. Contrary to his expectations, his parents responded with warmth, holding him emotionally and reassuring him that his place within the family was secure. Their participation in therapy allowed them to express their own anxieties such as worries about societal stigma, while simultaneously affirming their love and support. The therapist facilitated conversations about the ways secrecy had functioned: once as a protective shield for the young man, but now, with its lifting, as an opportunity for greater openness and relational depth. Therapy thus created a shared space where the family could renegotiate roles, articulate fears and hopes, and begin to build new narratives grounded in trust and acceptance.

This vignette illustrates how systemic therapy can provide a container not only for individual processing but also for the healing process of the familial system. It highlights the value of involving family members in order to address both the protective and restrictive aspects of secrecy, while also supporting the creation of relational environments where disclosure can become a gateway to connection rather than rupture.

It is evident that the presence of family secrecy in childhood can have significant implications for both the individual and their families, including the impact on their psychological and emotional wellbeing, identity formation, family dynamics and conflicts, issues with trust and communication, and trauma and healing. As illustrated in the vignette above, family secrets can thus serve as gateways to crucial themes and dynamics within one’s upbringing and family life, presenting avenues for exploration and understanding in therapy. Receiving training in recognising and validating those aspects of their clients’ stories that are left unsaid or are partially disclosed may help a practitioner to become attuned and to navigate the more sensitive, sometimes hidden parts of their clients’ life trajectories, working systemically with individuals and/or other family members impacted by family secrecy. Moreover, creative techniques and metaphors may facilitate the opening and expression of the myriad of emotions surrounding secrecy within their family, offering clients alternative avenues for processing their experiences. The emotional rollercoaster model developed for this study (Camilleri & Sammut Scerri, 2025) provides a valuable framework for exploring the parallel processes that clients may experience as they recall their encounters with family secrecy whilst also making decisions around what to share, when, where, to whom and how to reveal it. This work can be done in different therapeutic contexts, including retrospective therapeutic work with adults reflecting on their childhood experiences as well as within family therapy contexts where more than one family member is invited to participate in the family secrecy exploration.

Systemic approaches offer pathways to healing and reconciliation, whether through the bringing together of various family members in therapy, or collaboratively rewriting alternative narratives and family scripts with the individual. Societal and cultural factors in which the family secrecy is situated need also to be considered when unpacking and processing its presence and overarching impact on the clients.

Limitations and Future Research

While considerable care has been taken in the data collection and analysis process, it is important to acknowledge several limitations affecting this research study. For ‘theoretical saturation’ to be achieved, one would need to collect more data and, thus, involve a larger number of participants. Furthermore, the data for each participant was collected at a single point in time, meaning the experiences shared reflect their recollection during one interview, potentially influenced by various factors. Some participants may have been hesitant to disclose certain details about family secrets, circumstances, and members due to the delicate nature of the topic, possibly limiting the depth of analysis and understanding of the consequences of secrecy on their lives and relationships. Additionally, there is the inherent subjectivity in how participants recall family events or perceive the presence and impacts of family secrets. The research process is also influenced by the dynamic between the researcher and the participant, both during and after the interview. Moreover, the analysis, selection, and interpretation of the key categories forming the main findings of the study represent one possible construct among several others. It is our discretion, as researchers, to focus on specific categories and sub-categories based on our own interpretation of recurring themes and experiences across the participants.

It is important to note that this paper does not present the full substantive theory developed from the grounded theory study but focuses instead on one finding that emerged from the broader dataset – family secrets as entry points into complex family dynamics. In doing so, the discussion offers an in-depth exploration of this particular point through three different categories while recognising that it is situated within a larger and more complex theoretical framework.

Another limitation relates to the potential cultural bias in both the findings and discussion, given that the study was conducted in Malta. Cultural norms, values, and relational practices surrounding family secrecy may have shaped the way participants understood and told their experiences, and these dynamics may potentially differ in other cultural contexts.

With regards to future research, it would be interesting to extend the research study using a full-scale constructivist grounded theory methodology, recruiting more participants to strive towards theoretical saturation. Moreover, one could also seek to triangulate the data by exploring other perspectives, including those of participants’ parents and other family members involved in the pattern of family secrecy. Using participatory methods with children, one could also obtain a richer understanding of children’s experiences of family secrecy during childhood, possibly recruiting children who are currently being supported through therapy to talk about their experiences with family secrecy. This would add a layer of understanding to retrospective accounts of the presence of family secrecy in childhood.

Conclusion

The stories told by the seven participants exhibit a broad spectrum of secrecy, encompassing various themes such as parental depression, life-threatening illness, questions of paternity, financial struggles, parental infidelity, instances of violence and abuse, and family inheritance. Each narrative unfolds distinct family secrets, which not only stand as discrete revelations but also function as portals into more intricate family dynamics and underlying issues. These narratives thus serve as pivotal ‘entry points’ into exploring multifaceted familial themes, thereby illuminating the complexity inherent in family relationships and dynamics.

The secrets demonstrate a comparable pattern, mirroring an observation articulated by Imber-Black (1998) regarding secrets as systemic phenomena. In this context, the individual secrets shared by each participant serve as microcosms of larger family patterns, reflecting the interplay of secrecy, communication dynamics, and relational complexities within their respective family units. By recognising secrets as systemic phenomena, one can appreciate the ripple effects they generate, permeating various facets of family life and causing a collective impact on the involved individuals.