* de facto etc parental relationships...

[fhtess65]

So, I figured out how to set parental relationships, however, I don't see the one I set reflected in any reports (individual summary, individual narrative)...Is this possible? Or is using the setting merely to trigger the visual cue in the Rel. column in the Focus window?

Thanks

[tatewise]

You are correct that those relationships are not shown in Diagrams or Reports by default.
The data reference %INDI.FAMC.PEDI% refers to those pedigree settings for the child Individual.
So you'd have to add that data ref to ISR Report Options for Main Section Items, or Narrative Report Sentence Templates.

[fhtess65]

Thanks, Mike - I'll definitely have a go at doing that

You are correct that those relationships are not shown in Diagrams or Reports by default.
The data reference %INDI.FAMC.PEDI% refers to those pedigree settings for the child Individual.
So you'd have to add that data ref to ISR Report Options for Main Section Items, or Narrative Report Sentence Templates.

[AdrianBruce]

Thanks, Mike - I'll definitely have a go at doing that
...

The parental relationships are definitely the starting point, but before you try and squeeze everything out of data reference %INDI.FAMC.PEDI% in narrative reports, you might ponder whether you also need more.

Certainly with a relationship of Adopted, it makes sense (in my view) to look at also including adoption events with (I suggest) witnesses to record birth and adoptive parents (at least). Fostering may repay a similar approach but I'm not convinced that the others seem to link to any plausible events.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=20960&hilit=adopti ... 25#p128035 shows the roles and sentences that I came up with for adoption. (Be warned - I went off piste in the middle of that thread by misunderstanding my elders and betters).

You may have already decided that more is necessary than just %INDI.FAMC.PEDI% in some cases...

[fhtess65]

In the case of an official adoption, I agree, however, the particular examples I have in my tree are from the late 19th century when it was a de facto relationship, with nothing official having taken place. Thanks for the pointer to the official adoption thread - I'll add it to my bookmarks

The parental relationships are definitely the starting point, but before you try and squeeze everything out of data reference %INDI.FAMC.PEDI% in narrative reports, you might ponder whether you also need more.

Certainly with a relationship of Adopted, it makes sense (in my view) to look at also including adoption events with (I suggest) witnesses to record birth and adoptive parents (at least). Fostering may repay a similar approach but I'm not convinced that the others seem to link to any plausible events.

[AdrianBruce]

In the case of an official adoption, I agree, however, the particular examples I have in my tree are from the late 19th century when it was a de facto relationship, with nothing official having taken place. ...

Interesting - I admit that I treat both formal and informal adoptions the same, with just a comment in the adoption event to say something along the lines of "At this stage in the UK, all adoptions were informal". Of course the adoption events are very much dated as "before 1911", or similar, due to lack of a precise event. Come to that, in the case where there is a formal adoption (it's in the USA in the 1950s), it still has "after dd mmm yyyy" for a date since all I found is the public notice of the intended adoption.

[fhtess65]

My only evidence of the informal evidence is that my great-grandmother was registered at birth as Rose Ann May Lawley on 14 Nov 1876, her mother, Caroline Lawley, married Jesse George Ferdinando on 28 Jul 1878, and the family was recorded in the 1881 census, with Rose Ann appearing as Rose A Barlow, relationship - daughter, born Islington, Middlesex.

I do know that at some point her mother must have told her she was born in Cambridgeshire, because her place of birth was recorded as such in the 1901, 1911, and 1921, so perhaps she also knew she wasn't Jesse George's daughter, but continued to use the name Barlow as MMN when registering her children's births.

I guess I could create an adoption event, but I prefer just to have Jesse appear as de facto father

In the case of an official adoption, I agree, however, the particular examples I have in my tree are from the late 19th century when it was a de facto relationship, with nothing official having taken place. ...

Interesting - I admit that I treat both formal and informal adoptions the same, with just a comment in the adoption event to say something along the lines of "At this stage in the UK, all adoptions were informal". Of course the adoption events are very much dated as "before 1911", or similar, due to lack of a precise event. Come to that, in the case where there is a formal adoption (it's in the USA in the 1950s), it still has "after dd mmm yyyy" for a date since all I found is the public notice of the intended adoption.

[LornaCraig]

Interesting - I admit that I treat both formal and informal adoptions the same, with just a comment in the adoption event to say something along the lines of "At this stage in the UK, all adoptions were informal".

Interesting - I made a decision some time ago that I would NOT treat formal and informal adoptions the same. I only use an adoption event or relationship in cases where there was a formal legal adoption. This is because a legal adoption is lasting. (As far as I know it can’t be reversed, but I’m ready to be corrected).

The problem is that informal adoptions were very fluid. There was no clear boundary between taking someone else’s child in to care for them for the foreseeable future, and making them permanently and irreversibly part of one’s own family.

I have found instances where an informal adoption has later been reversed/abandoned/ignored. For example a child was informally adopted, recorded with the "adopting" parents’ surname and even described as an "adopted son" in a 19th century census. Ten years later he was still in the same household but recorded with his birth surname, and as a boarder. When he later married he named his birth father.

At the time of the original "adoption" it was probably intended to be permanent but with hindsight we would now say he was being fostered.

[BillH]

In the United States it is very difficult to reverse an adoption, but it can be done in some very specific circumstances.

An attempt to reverse an adoption can be made by the primary parties, including the biological parents, the adoptive parents, or the adopted child. In the case of the biological parents requesting the return of the child, it may be possible if the adoptive parents agree. The adoptive parents can also request the adoption be reversed if they can show that such reversal would be in the best interest of the child. Finally, the adopted child can also request to be returned to the biological parents.


Just because there is an attempt to reverse an adoption, doesn't guarantee that the courts will approve that reversal.

Bill

[AdrianBruce]

... I guess I could create an adoption event, but I prefer just to have Jesse appear as de facto father ...

Sounds a perfectly sensible approach to me. On the other hand, I've got children marked in the English census as "adopted" (informally at this time) - still under their birth names in some cases. (My mother knew at least one of these people and told me that the person had been adopted. The actual relationships involved were far more scandalous than a little girl like my mother was allowed to know. But the birth names make it clear what was going on - if not why. Put it like this, the adoptive father appears to have been heroically tolerant! And all in a little country village!)

[AdrianBruce]

... I made a decision some time ago that I would NOT treat formal and informal adoptions the same. I only use an adoption event or relationship in cases where there was a formal legal adoption. This is because a legal adoption is lasting. ...
The problem is that informal adoptions were very fluid. There was no clear boundary between taking someone else’s child in to care for them for the foreseeable future, and making them permanently and irreversibly part of one’s own family. ...

Yes, I see your point and agree with the fluidity. I think I just took my approach because if it said "adopted" in the census (or my mother said "adopted"!), it would have seemed odd to me not to use that term - especially if the result was only two adoptions in my database. I attempt to resolve the fluidity with copious notes, especially where inconsistencies appear...

[mezentia]

A History of Adoption in England & Wales 1850 - 1961 by Gill Rossini is an interesting read for anyone researching adoptees and their adoptive families.

However, if your adoption documents have been lost (it's said in a fire at Warwick Archives), all you know of your biological father is that he is probably Polish, is rumoured to have been a fighter pilot in WWII, might have been called "Chas", possibly lived in Yorkshire in the late 1940s, and your only good DNA hit is a second cousin in Canada who sadly can't help much beyond another rumour of parents receiving "parcels from a relative in England" then it's all a bit academic really

Still, there's always the biological maternal side, adoptive parents' trees, including the adoptive mother's biological and her adoptive parents ' trees, and a step parent's tree to work on, and considering that yet more of these have links back to Jewish communities in Poland, and I don't speak Polish or Hebrew, that's another challenge