* Adoption problem

[martynguy]

My grandmother was adopted at the age of 10 in 1890 - well before the Act regulating adoption in 1926. At that time it appears child adoption was an informal and generally secretive arrangement. However I know exactly who the adoptive parents were, but also who my grandmother's biological mother was (and her family). The latter (my gt grandmother) later took her daughter back and both appear on later censuses as aunt and niece (that little fiction was passed down through the family).
My query is how to recognise these two families in the database on FH. I can put my grandmother down as a child of the adoptive parents, with the relationship 'a' for adopted, but in that case on any chart she would appear with the adoptive parents. I would obviously prefer her to be linked to her biological mother (there is no father recorded, so I have to assume she is illegitimate), especially as she took her back later. So how do I do this while recognising the adoptive parents also. Is there a way of marking the biological mother as the preferred/default parent, appearing in the ancestral charts, whilst also having the adoptive parents as 'secondary' or alternate parents?

[jimlad68]

Yes, a dilemma. On the one hand I think most people think of genealogy as biological/ genetic (gen as in genealogy), but then some think of their family as who brought them up, especially if they feel very culturally influenced, and let's face it, how many of our paternal lines are 100% correct even when the documentary evidence says is! I have always found one name studies interesting, (how many would stand up to genetic testing), as you are more likely to get the right mother than the right father!

Sorry I have no answers but I will follow this thread with interest, it might also shed some light on "triple" parents, or those where there might be one of a number of fathers.

[tatewise]

Many people feel they are researching their family history, not just their genealogy, and adoptive/foster parents are just as important as blood line parents. So certainly record the adoptive parents and set the a=adopted relationship.

FH & GEDCOM allow more than one set of Parents for a Child.

So for your great-grandmother in her Property Box add a Spouse even if their name is <unknown> and set the Status to Never married (or Unmarried couple) so that Reports do not say they were married but just had a relationship.

In the same Property Box use Add Child to add her daughter, your grandmother, to create a new family.

Now navigate to the daughter's Property Box and on the All tab she will have two Parents family entries. I suggest you select the one linked to her great-grandmother and click the up arrow button top right to move it above the adoptive parents.

Now in Reports I believe both parents will be listed, and in Diagrams you will be asked to choose which parents to show as Ancestor.

Maybe this needs a Knowledge Base article on the subject (I was surprised there was not one already.)
[EDIT 17 March:
I have added Recording Children with Foster/Adoptive Parents.]

[victor]

My grandfather was illegitimate born in 1862. He was registered under his mother's name, George Briggs, and also baptised that way. His father is not known.
His mother married Charles Markham in 1865. After that he was known as George Markham.

I have not listed him as Charles's child but have used the alternative name feature in the property box. So George has two names Briggs and Markham. I have not treated him as if he was adopted simply because I have not come across any record of him. Whether he was or not no one knows.

I have listed him as a child of his mother, Mary Briggs, separately from Charles Markham. Mary and Charles had children of their own.

I have had a DNA to see if Charles Markham could be his father. The result is he is not. My DNA report states my ancestor is Polish. I take that to be George Briggs father is Polish.

A further search revealed that in the 1860's the Poles were persecuted. These were upper class Poles. My DNA details are on the web but whether any use comes of that only time will tell. Who know I could have been Count Victor!

We all have our own way of doing things and this is mine

Victor

[tatewise]

adopted is not he only child-parent relationship.
There are also foster, step, illegitimate, and others you could use.

[Langbard]

Mike, I have followed your instructions in this post and you say that both sets of parents show up in the report, but I cannot see this in the individual narrative. (In the ancestor chart I get to chose which set of parents to show)

In the All tab I can see that the birth parents family comes before the adopted parents family

It's a minor issue but would be useful to have a solution.

[LornaCraig]

If you create an Adoption fact you can add a note to the fact recording any of the circumstances known, including naming the other set of parents (or both sets of parents) in the note. The fact, with its note, will then be included in the narrative report. Admittedly you will still need to choose which set of parents you want to be named in the first sentence of the narrative. The priority of the parents can be changed in the All tab by selecting one of the couples and using the black up/down arrows near the top right.

[tatewise]

Yes, Narrative Reports are the exception unless you customise some facts to mention the adoptive parents such as adding them as Fact Witnesses in some way.

Individual Summary Reports and Family Groups Sheets mention all parents by default.

Ancestor Outline Reports need the Options > Main tab Other Sets of Parents ticked.

[AdrianBruce]

Yes, Narrative Reports are the exception unless you customise some facts to mention the adoptive parents such as adding them as Fact Witnesses in some way. ...

If you want to follow up on Mike's suggestion above and get some more detail around the appearance of both sets of parents in Narrative Reports, then see viewtopic.php?f=32&t=20960 - at the end, I list the principles that I'm now following. (Note I didn't explain myself too well earlier in that thread).

[BEJ]

Maybe this needs a Knowledge Base article on the subject (I was surprised there was not one already.)
[EDIT 17 March:
I have added Recording Children with Foster/Adoptive Parents.]

Mike: Did you consider using "biological" rather than "natural"? That may avoid the confusion in use of the term natural that you describe in the Knowledge Base article, and is the way I have always heard the relationship described: biological or adoptive/foster.

[tatewise]

Does the Nomenclature section cover that?
The GEDCOM Pedigree relationships are adopted, birth, foster & sealing and FH has added de facto, illegitimate & step.

[davidf]

Mike: Did you consider using "biological" rather than "natural"? That may avoid the confusion in use of the term natural that you describe in the Knowledge Base article, and is the way I have always heard the relationship described: biological or adoptive/foster.

Does the Nomenclature section cover that?
The GEDCOM Pedigree relationships are adopted, birth, foster & sealing and FH has added de facto, illegitimate & step.

I probably ought to put my hand up as the person who added the Nomenclature section to an existing Knowledge Base article - I think it was my first edit!

The FH KB does not have a "netiquette section" so I followed advice that I was given elsewhere; "feel happy to add sections but do not make amendments to existing content except by arrangement with the original author". Authors are not visible so I assumed that if the moderators accepted my section they would

• cascade the argument (about "Birth" vs "Natural" etc.) through the rest of the article (for instance the heading "Natural Parents" which may be what BEJ was referring to), or
• inform the original author in case they want to cascade the changes - or take exception to the modification, or
• let it stand

The instructions to contributors do indicate that if something is controversial, they would like to see it discussed in the forum before the Knowledge Base is amended.

I assumed they felt my edit was uncontroversial and that the third of the options above was chosen.