Jump to content


Photo

Adoption


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 30 November 2009 - 08:34 PM

I can only say that one should be very careful with the idea that only the DNA counts. If you assume only a small chance of error, the cumulative probability of being related to any given ancestor 10 generations out pretty quickly approaches zero.


Don,

Appreciate your comments.

I understand what you are saying and I'm certain there are probably individuals in my pedigree that are not DNA/genetically related because of adoptions (legal or otherwise) that are unknown to me. This does not mean however that I'm willing to knowingly present current data that I know is not true. There are other areas that I don't even like to think about, artificial insemination being one of them.

Jesse

#22 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1074 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 09:15 AM

There are other areas that I don't even like to think about, artificial insemination being one of them.

Not to mention, what if the child's biologic father is the escaped murderer who raped his/her mother?

#23 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 10:51 AM

Not to mention, what if the child's biologic father is the escaped murderer who raped his/her mother?


It's very true that truth can sometimes be painful but I find untruths/misrepresentations (lies to be blunt) painful also. In the political world everyone talks about being "politically correct". In the genealogy world being "genetically correct" seems appropriate. It seems most want to ignore the "gene" in genealogy however. Sociology seems more appropriate when you apply cultural and legal issues to descendants.

#24 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 12:33 PM

DNA? Bloodlines!

A second cousin of mine did a DNA test. The results lead back to Lyles and Carlyles, not his surname. That may account for our brick wall for various reasons. Or a child lived in a household with an acknowledged father who wasn't the blood father which isn't all that uncommon given human nature. The mother might not even be the blood mother if a child was taken in and raised as their own.

I know that my daughter's father is the man that is known by others to be her father. I'm the only person that can be sure of that. Anyone else is just assuming, even her father.

We can never be certain we are actually following a true blood line. About all we can say is this person using this surname was raised in this household as a child of these parents.

The bottom line is that all of us doing genealogy are Family Historians. ;) DNA test may eventually change that but not yet.

Laura

#25 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 01:28 PM

DNA? Bloodlines!

A second cousin of mine did a DNA test. The results lead back to Lyles and Carlyles, not his surname. That may account for our brick wall for various reasons. Or a child lived in a household with an acknowledged father who wasn't the blood father which isn't all that uncommon given human nature. The mother might not even be the blood mother if a child was taken in and raised as their own.

I know that my daughter's father is the man that is known by others to be her father. I'm the only person that can be sure of that. Anyone else is just assuming, even her father.

We can never be certain we are actually following a true blood line. About all we can say is this person using this surname was raised in this household as a child of these parents.

The bottom line is that all of us doing genealogy are Family Historians. ;) DNA test may eventually change that but not yet.

Laura


Laura,

I understand what you are saying, unfortunately genetic irregularities in my past are past and impossible for me to determine.

Bottom Line: What I object to is not being able to present my personal (present day) genealogy in a "genetically correct" manner, instead I'm forced to either leave something out or present it in a cultural/legal format seemingly dictated by the LDS. I don't think the 5.5 gedcom standard has any provisions for this but it is possible for the program "RM" to do it as an option.

Jesse

Jesse

#26 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:00 PM

I don't understand why, if you are set on having your data in a "genetically correct" manner why are you linking the child to the stepfather?

Delete the adopted fact if linked and put a note in the child's Birth fact that he was adopted by the stepfather. That's not leaving anything out just changing the way it is presented in the database.

Did you summit a ticket to RM support asking for the changes you want made as I suggested?

Laura

#27 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 06:39 PM

I don't understand why, if you are set on having your data in a "genetically correct" manner why are you linking the child to the stepfather?

Delete the adopted fact if linked and put a note in the child's Birth fact that he was adopted by the stepfather. That's not leaving anything out just changing the way it is presented in the database.

Did you summit a ticket to RM support asking for the changes you want made as I suggested?

Laura

Laura,

Hopefully the attached files will explain:

Blair-01 represents a current (blended) family group where all the children from both parents previous & current marriages are shown. Depending on which combination of father and mother is selected it will show the appropriate family group. This is the way I anticipated it would/should be with the appropriate mother/father relationships specified and is the way I like to see it.

While Danielle and James are not our biological grandchildren, we treat them as such and is why I have them associated the way I do.

Blair-02 is the descendants chart which now shows, for example, his daughter Danielle from his first marriage as a child of all 3 marriages instead of just showing her with her birth parents. This is not at all what I expected/want to see.

Using Danielle as an example, depending on the mother/father combination you choose, her pedigree changes to that of the father and that of the then existing step-mother instead of remaining with the birth mother/father.

Another example: John Phillips, a son from our daughters first marriage, now shows his relationship to Michael as a son instead of step-son even though he is specified as a step-son in the family group.

If the family groups can function properly, why can't the descendants and pedigree charts do the same?

I have not submitted a ticket yet, still trying to figure out just how to present it.

Jesse

Posted ImagePosted Image

#28 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1074 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 06:48 PM

A second cousin of mine did a DNA test. The results lead back to Lyles and Carlyles, not his surname. That may account for our brick wall for various reasons. Or a child lived in a household with an acknowledged father who wasn't the blood father which isn't all that uncommon given human nature. The mother might not even be the blood mother if a child was taken in and raised as their own.

I was looking on Ancestry.com and found someone listed as the child of one couple, complete with a long ancestry. What they didn't know is that this girl, born in 1861, was the child of a young unmarried great-grandaunt of mine. She was adopted by another family. The circumstances of her birth and adoption were a family secret kept for over 140 years. As far as I know, there was no paperwork recording this. I don't think the people who put the information on Ancestry.com had any idea that their great grandmother was adopted. Who knows how often this happened? Maybe DNA will tell us.

#29 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6435 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:28 PM

Interesting dilemma. So John Aldrick IV Phillips would not show up on Michael Alan Blair's Descendants List. That is, no step-children, no adopted children, no child other than one having a birth relationship would show on a Descendants List/Chart. I can see some logic to that, but only as an option for the more general case. Perhaps the ideal would be a File Option or Report Setting (stored and recallable) which allows one to choose which of the eight currently defined relationships to show, i.e., Birth, Adopted, Step, Foster, Related, Guardian, Sealed, Unknown.

Tom user of RM7630 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#30 Ludlow Bay

Ludlow Bay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 868 posts

Posted 01 December 2009 - 08:52 PM

I was looking on Ancestry.com and found someone listed as the child of one couple, complete with a long ancestry. What they didn't know is that this girl, born in 1861, was the child of a young unmarried great-grandaunt of mine. She was adopted by another family. The circumstances of her birth and adoption were a family secret kept for over 140 years. As far as I know, there was no paperwork recording this. I don't think the people who put the information on Ancestry.com had any idea that their great grandmother was adopted. Who knows how often this happened? Maybe DNA will tell us.



Then how do YOU know its true? Genealogically speaking, of course.

#31 bienia

bienia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 02 December 2009 - 10:00 AM

Don,

I personally could care less about either cultural or legal adoption matters, DNA is really the only thing I personally recognize. Interestingly enough is the genealogy DNA testing offered by Ancestry.com. What does that do to the cultural or legal view on adoption and pedigree/descendancy?

... no matter how many times you are adopted, your DNA pedigree or DNA descendancy never changes.

Jesse

Jesse,
RootsMagic has the flexibility to allow you to define relationships based on your cultural preference, based on legal adoption or based on DNA. However, it it up to the user to enter the people into the program based on their requirements. DNA requires that each child only have one set of two parents; any other child to parental relationships must be excluded from your data to ensure your stated objective.

In the pics you attached to the message on 01 December 2009 - 07:39 PM, you have chosen to enter the the non-DNA-related children as DNA-related children. This is a contradition in your specifically stated goal of showing only DNA relationships since "DNA is really the only thing I personally recognize."

If you only want strictly DNA relationships as you stated, then you MUST NOT add the child to a second set of parents. The second set of parents are not both DNA parents and are incompatible with your goal of strict DNA lineage. You cannot have it both ways!

If, on the other hand, your goal is to show all the "blended" relationships between your son and his present wife for both their birth (DNA) children as well as his adopted child (his present wife's child by a previous marriage) and her step children (his children from his previous marriages), as you have indicated is your preference in the Blair-01.jpg, then there are a number of suggestions for RootsMagician to consider.

First, you could request that RM optionally display the defined relationships in a "relation" column in the Descendant View, as displayed in the Family View. I indicate "optionally" since other people will/may want to choose to not display this information. This way you can tell at a glance what the relationship is when you choose to add multiple parents to the children, just as you can in the Family View. I feel after the Death place would be fine since it would match the Family view.

Secondly, you could request that this "relationship" be optionally shown in the FGS (currently there is no relationship shown implying birth relationships, unless you happen to notice an "Adoption" fact for any of the children. There is plenty of room on the name line at the right end to display the relationship. I indicate "optionally" since other people will want to choose to not display this information.

Third, you could request that RM optionally show each parent-child/ren relationship separately via the child list sentence in Narrative reports based on the relationship to the father and mother set in the Parent panel of the Edit Person screen. I indicate "optionally" since other people will want to choose to not display this information in this form. (Personally, there are so many permutations as well as personal circumstances involving these relationships that I feel RM should allow the users to create Child List introductory sentences with support for the built-in RM4 template language.)

Fourth, you could request that this "relationship" be optionally shown in the Individual Summary for each child, or at least for each child that does not have a birth-birth relationship. There is no relationship shown except for "child" implying a birth relations, and there are no facts shown for the children to even indicate "Adoption". I indicate "optionally" since other people will want to choose to not display this information.
-----------
Bill Bienia

RootsMagic Tips sheets: www.CobblestoneLegacies.com/resources.htm

#32 bienia

bienia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 02 December 2009 - 10:12 AM

Hopefully the attached files will explain:

Posted ImagePosted Image

Jesse,
I re-created your family group from your images and I found two problems (one a defficency, one looks like a "bug") that I will submit to RootsMagic.

The first is that the numbering in the Descendant Modified Register narrative report are messed up. The numbering is incorrectly shown as

1. Michael ...

Michael and Lori had

2. Danielle [this is OK]

Michael and Julie had

1. Danielle [should be # 2]
3. James [this is OK]

Michael and Rebecca had

1. Danielle [should be # 2]
2. James [should be # 3]
4. John IV [OK]
5. Ryan [OK]
6. Aiden [OK]

The children shown in the previoous family group have the wrong numbers.

Second, when you highlight a child, and click on Parents in the top left corner of the information area, there is no way to rearrange parents into the proper order. This is only a visual thing since the order of the parents is not used anywhere that I know of, unlike the Arrange Children or Arrange Spouses which impact some of the report layouts.
-----------
Bill Bienia

RootsMagic Tips sheets: www.CobblestoneLegacies.com/resources.htm

#33 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1074 posts

Posted 02 December 2009 - 11:43 AM

Then how do YOU know its true? Genealogically speaking, of course.

Oral family tradition, passed from a great aunt, to my father's cousin, to me. In a census she was listed as "A Dtr" in the relationship column but I doubt that her descendants noticed this.

#34 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 02 December 2009 - 03:42 PM

Jesse,
RootsMagic has the flexibility to allow you to define relationships based on your cultural preference, based on legal adoption or based on DNA. However, it it up to the user to enter the people into the program based on their requirements. DNA requires that each child only have one set of two parents; any other child to parental relationships must be excluded from your data to ensure your stated objective.

In the pics you attached to the message on 01 December 2009 - 07:39 PM, you have chosen to enter the the non-DNA-related children as DNA-related children. This is a contradition in your specifically stated goal of showing only DNA relationships since "DNA is really the only thing I personally recognize."

If you only want strictly DNA relationships as you stated, then you MUST NOT add the child to a second set of parents. The second set of parents are not both DNA parents and are incompatible with your goal of strict DNA lineage. You cannot have it both ways!

If, on the other hand, your goal is to show all the "blended" relationships between your son and his present wife for both their birth (DNA) children as well as his adopted child (his present wife's child by a previous marriage) and her step children (his children from his previous marriages), as you have indicated is your preference in the Blair-01.jpg, then there are a number of suggestions for RootsMagician to consider.

First, you could request that RM optionally display the defined relationships in a "relation" column in the Descendant View, as displayed in the Family View. I indicate "optionally" since other people will/may want to choose to not display this information. This way you can tell at a glance what the relationship is when you choose to add multiple parents to the children, just as you can in the Family View. I feel after the Death place would be fine since it would match the Family view.

Secondly, you could request that this "relationship" be optionally shown in the FGS (currently there is no relationship shown implying birth relationships, unless you happen to notice an "Adoption" fact for any of the children. There is plenty of room on the name line at the right end to display the relationship. I indicate "optionally" since other people will want to choose to not display this information.

Third, you could request that RM optionally show each parent-child/ren relationship separately via the child list sentence in Narrative reports based on the relationship to the father and mother set in the Parent panel of the Edit Person screen. I indicate "optionally" since other people will want to choose to not display this information in this form. (Personally, there are so many permutations as well as personal circumstances involving these relationships that I feel RM should allow the users to create Child List introductory sentences with support for the built-in RM4 template language.)

Fourth, you could request that this "relationship" be optionally shown in the Individual Summary for each child, or at least for each child that does not have a birth-birth relationship. There is no relationship shown except for "child" implying a birth relations, and there are no facts shown for the children to even indicate "Adoption". I indicate "optionally" since other people will want to choose to not display this information.


Bill,

I have not been able to digest everything you have stated, however I do believe it is quite easy to have it "both ways", at least from my point of view. The family group as displayed in Blair-01 is fine, the family group sheet that is created by the report generator is also fine and is what I think most want to see anyway. The descendants report is another issue. Currently it shows this way.

1-Michael Alan BLAIR (13 July 1969-)
+Lori REYOME (-)
. . . . 2-Danielle Brook REYOME (20 July 1987-)
+Julie Leigh KAMP (-)
. . . . 2-Danielle Brook REYOME (20 July 1987-)
. . . . 2-James Alan BLAIR (24 September 1989-)
+Rebecca Ellen PICKRUM (11 April 1972-)
. . . . 2-Danielle Brook REYOME (20 July 1987-)
. . . . 2-James Alan BLAIR (24 September 1989-)
. . . . 2-John IV Phillips (28 May 1995-)
. . . . 2-Ryan Patrick BLAIR (23 August 2004-)
. . . . 2-Aidan Jesse BLAIR (24 May 2007-)

All I want it to do is show this way.

1-Michael Alan BLAIR (13 July 1969-)
+Lori REYOME (-)
. . . . 2-Danielle Brook REYOME (20 July 1987-)
+Julie Leigh KAMP (-)
. . . . 2-James Alan BLAIR (24 September 1989-)
+Rebecca Ellen PICKRUM (11 April 1972-)
. . . . 2-Ryan Patrick BLAIR (23 August 2004-)
. . . . 2-Aidan Jesse BLAIR (24 May 2007-)

Listing only the children that have a birth relationship to both parents. Since each child has been identified as either birth or step to the respective parent groups, this should be no problem to do. This is what would seem to be one of the reason for defining the various parent/child relationships.

In addition son/daughter/father/mother relationships should be restricted to those with a birth relationship, otherwise they would be step-son/daughter/father/mother.

Pedigree should follow only that of the birth father & mother.

Jesse

#35 bienia

bienia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 02 December 2009 - 04:40 PM

I have not been able to digest everything you have stated, however I do believe it is quite easy to have it "both ways", at least from my point of view. The family group as displayed in Blair-01 is fine, the family group sheet that is created by the report generator is also fine and is what I think most want to see anyway.

I don't understand. The FGS, which shows the father and mother and their children, is fine showing all 5 children, but the Descendant report that shows the exact some thing is not! I am really confused!
-----------
Bill Bienia

RootsMagic Tips sheets: www.CobblestoneLegacies.com/resources.htm

#36 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 02 December 2009 - 06:35 PM

I don't understand. The FGS, which shows the father and mother and their children, is fine showing all 5 children, but the Descendant report that shows the exact some thing is not! I am really confused!


Bill,

Nothing really confusing about it if you look at is as the difference between "Family History (cultural)" and "Descendancy (biological)". Neither the information in the "Family" View or the generated "Family" Group Sheet say anything about descendancy, just "Family". The fact that the children have different surnames (except possibly adopted children that have had their name changed) seem obvious enough that they are not born of the same father & mother, but rather just members of a "blended family". The descendants view & descendants reports indicates to me biological/DNA and is what I see as having it "both ways" with some quite simple programming. After all, the descendants view still shows all the children which he/she can call birth son/daughter in biological fashion rather than cultural and the Family View/Group shows birth/step/adopted/etc. all together.

Jesse

PS

The Family View in RM shows the father/mother relationship and if a child is adopted it will also show on the Family Group Sheet, these factors goes to show the differences between them (cultural) and the descendants list (biological).

#37 bienia

bienia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 08:59 AM

I beg to differ. The Family Group Sheet's purpose is to show a biological family.

The intent of the Family View and the Descendant View is just to show different views of the data entered into RootsMagic. The Family Group Sheet and the Descendants List are reports showing the data entered into the program. If you enter only the biological children for each set of parents, then you get the biological data only in the Family View/FGS and Descendant View/List. This is the "Descendancy (biological)" data.

If you choose to take advantage of the features within RootsMagic to create blended families, you can enter multiple parents for the children, which will then appear in the Family View, in the Descendant View, in the Family Group Sheet, and in the Descendants list -- exactly as you enter the data. This is the "Family History (cultural)" data.

The blended family is the model preferred by family historians and by the modern-day genealogical community standards. However, the RM views and reports do not presently show the multiple relationships for these blended families, other than the Family View which shows the data to indicate there are multiple relationships within the family. The Descendants View, the FGS and the Descendant List all need to be updated to show this relationship data. The Narrative Reports also need to be updated to show the separate, multiple parent-to-child relationships. Incorporating this data in the FGS, Descendant List, Individual Summary, Individual List, Kinship List, and Narrative Reports is all work that needs to be done.

The Pedigree Chart is controlled by the options the user sets to denote the preferred parents - it does not have an option to override the preferred setting and create a Pedigree Chart showing biological parentage only.
-----------
Bill Bienia

RootsMagic Tips sheets: www.CobblestoneLegacies.com/resources.htm

#38 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 11:58 AM

I beg to differ. The Family Group Sheet's purpose is to show a biological family.

The intent of the Family View and the Descendant View is just to show different views of the data entered into RootsMagic. The Family Group Sheet and the Descendants List are reports showing the data entered into the program. If you enter only the biological children for each set of parents, then you get the biological data only in the Family View/FGS and Descendant View/List. This is the "Descendancy (biological)" data.

If you choose to take advantage of the features within RootsMagic to create blended families, you can enter multiple parents for the children, which will then appear in the Family View, in the Descendant View, in the Family Group Sheet, and in the Descendants list -- exactly as you enter the data. This is the "Family History (cultural)" data.

The blended family is the model preferred by family historians and by the modern-day genealogical community standards. However, the RM views and reports do not presently show the multiple relationships for these blended families, other than the Family View which shows the data to indicate there are multiple relationships within the family. The Descendants View, the FGS and the Descendant List all need to be updated to show this relationship data. The Narrative Reports also need to be updated to show the separate, multiple parent-to-child relationships. Incorporating this data in the FGS, Descendant List, Individual Summary, Individual List, Kinship List, and Narrative Reports is all work that needs to be done.

The Pedigree Chart is controlled by the options the user sets to denote the preferred parents - it does not have an option to override the preferred setting and create a Pedigree Chart showing biological parentage only.


I beg to differ. The Family Group Sheet's purpose is to show a biological family.


Since the FGS will show an adopted child as adopted it does not seem to be biologically oriented. Unless of course you follow the idea that an adopted child somehow has his DNA magically/miraculously transformed at the time of adoption (sealing). I live in the now/DNA (flesh & blood) world and not in the spiritual one.

I like the blended family concept for the FGS but feel the other reports, need to be updated to follow the birth/step/adopted/etc. information as entered by the author (this would seem to be the purpose for designating the child's relationships to the blended family). Not just notes, but follow them to the letter, not following any religious or cultural thinking, but rather following bloodline/DNA. This would also include pedigree charts that should only follow the birth parents of the individual (unknown or otherwise).

I seem to be missing the "preferred parents" you mentioned about pedigree.

These updates should probably be in the form of options.

Jesse

#39 bienia

bienia

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 12:43 PM

I seem to be missing the "preferred parents" you mentioned about pedigree.

Highlight a child that has two or more sets of parents, then in the upper left corner click on the bar that show Parents. Click on the set of parents that you want as the preferred set.
-----------
Bill Bienia

RootsMagic Tips sheets: www.CobblestoneLegacies.com/resources.htm

#40 JHP

JHP

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 01:20 PM

Highlight a child that has two or more sets of parents, then in the upper left corner click on the bar that show Parents. Click on the set of parents that you want as the preferred set.


Ok, Ancestry.com's online program has an option "set as preferred" so was looking for that specific option. All the children in my example have a preferred parent set. Danielle for example has the father selected 3 times as "birth" (once for each of the 3 marriages) and only one mother is set to "birth".

You can download my test file here: http://pickrum.org/Blair/Blair.rar

Jesse