It's not until Patrick becomes involved in another abduction case that he realises that Remy has lied to him about something, and the truth begins to be glimpsed. Patrick raises an important question when he reflects, 'I can't think of one thing big enough to make him lie, but small enough not to matter.'
The unravelling of the knot of deception leads to a point at which Patrick must make a huge choice. He can take a principled decision, wrecking the lives of a good-hearted, respectable couple and possibly dooming a young child to a blighted life of neglect in tough surroundings. Or he can focus on the apparent benefits of keeping his mouth shut, allowing the couple the happiness they longed for and giving the child a chance to grow up in a supportive, loving and generous environment.
It is a choice between two of the primary approaches to ethics. Deontological ethics is about making choices on the basis of principles and duty, rather than being concerned about outcomes, whereas consequentialist ethics is all about outcomes, stressing that the right choice is one that has the best results. It's a tough call for Patrick. He wants things to work out well for people, but he wants to do what is right. It creates tension between Patrick and Angie, since she is adamant that the only thing he should be concerned about is the happiness of the people immediately involved.
However, Patrick recognises that the world is not quite so straightforward. Whose happiness should he considering? It's not good enough just to think about the child or the couple because there are other people involved, people whose rights will be ignored and who will be deeply hurt by a consequentialist decision. And how should happiness be properly evaluated?
Patrick can only take a guess at how the future might unfold, and the option that appears to offer happiness may turn out to result in enormous grief. Is happiness about having the right things in our lives, or is it about having good connections with other people, family in particular? And can principles be left on one side? Is Angie right to think that happiness (or potential happiness) trumps justice? How can Patrick balance various human rights that appear, at least at first sight, to be in conflict? Then there's the question of the extent to which the goal justifies the means.
Making the happiness of a few people the governing factor would effectively condone the terrible actions which lead up to this point, many of which have been justified on consequentialist grounds. These are difficult questions, and Gone Baby Gone wrestles with them in an intelligent and challenging way.
It seems that Patrick might particularly struggle with his choice because of an incident earlier in the film. Finding himself confronted by the tragic consequences of a paedophile's actions, Patrick takes the law into his own hands. Everyone praises him for it: Angie tells him that she is proud of him, and Remy Bressant insists that Patrick should be proud of himself.
