A contribution to one person can enter a relationship in which another actor exercises hidden control over decisions and resources. This paper examines the normative significance of that configuration in specified familial dependency relations. It distinguishes the recipient's exposure to domination from the outside contributor's uncertainty about downstream consequences. A contributor's inability to trace a gift or direct earned wages does not, by itself, establish injustice. The analysis therefore differentiates gifts, compensation, joint projects, and purpose-specific support, and identifies the additional grounds on which a third party may have a justified complaint. A jurisprudential framework separates effective control, legitimate authority, claim-rights, decision powers, and responsibilities. It also distinguishes the intermediary's causal role from voluntary representation and assesses responsibility in light of knowledge, coercion, and practical alternatives. The resulting account treats opacity as a condition that can facilitate wrongful interference while preserving the recipient's privacy and agency. A bounded comparison with colonial theory examines similarities in directed activity, extraction, and the reproduction of control, alongside the historical and institutional features that resist transfer. The paper offers criteria for normative analysis and empirical investigation, without inferring legal liability or presenting a general entitlement to govern the downstream use of another person's resources. ( direct link )