Hi Brian, I'd add the child to both biological and adopting families. The Legacy message you encountered is just a warning that the person already has a set of parents, not a block to adding another set when that is what you are wanting to do. Normal genealogical practice is to use the birth name for someone but when someone for most purposes has been known by another surname, I tend to put that as the main name and the birth name as an AKA. Either way I also put a note in the Birth Notes.
Adding a second set of parents even when the second set is part of the family doesn't create an endless loop. That is only done when a descendant is wrongly linked in as an ancestor. Cathy Jenny M Benson wrote: > > On 12/11/2014 19:58, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: >> >> I just came across a little problem in my family file that I’ve never >> had to deal with before. It involves adopted children… which I’ve >> handled before but in this case it involves the adoption by a sister of >> the baby of a brother. In other words, both the natural parents and the >> adopting parents are in my family. Naturally I enter the child as being >> born to the natural parents but how do I show the child with the >> adopting parents (other than through notes)? If I try to enter a new >> child to the adopting parents as a “link to an existing daughterâ€, the >> Legacy tells me that the child is already a child of another family and >> if I want to add as a child to this family also. I think that is what I >> should do and then change the child’s settings to “Adopted†(for the >> adopted parents only). But now, do I change the surname of the child to >> the new adopted parents’ names especially since her name appears that >> way in all future documents. I think this would be the correct way but >> I’m wondering if I haven’t missed an obvious better method or might I be >> accidentally creating an endless loop of relationships. > > > I would handle it just as you describe. >> >> And just some other wild thoughts, if I do change the adopted daughters >> surname, Legacy will change the surname of the daughter shown with the >> natural parents (after all, both listings of the daughter have the same >> RIN). But at the same time, it just seems weird to look at the family of >> the natural parents and then to see their daughter listed with a >> different surname. >> > > You just need to decide which name to giver has the "main one" and which > one to use as the AKA. > > My daughter was not adopted by her step-father, but took his surname a > couple of years after our marriage and has used it ever since - about 30 > years. I have put that name as the AKA and left her birth surname as > the main one because it's the one which matches her parents and the one > which is on her birth certificate. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
