Did I propose something to the contrary? What I believe, and thought I
outlined, is that all data should be recorded as accurately as possible.
Recording family data can never be a matter for the heart, it must be
entered as it is, not as you would *like* it to be.
Tom.........
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Descendant Narrative Book - child status
Perhaps this should be more an outline of the heart rather than whose
bio-nuclear category slices them from the family.
Most children (legally adopted or just taken in) are thought of as
100% children of that couple, in every way imaginable, and later their
children are treated as absolute grandchildren, loved equally to
biological grandchildren.
If this is the case - attach a note with the circumstances of their
birth, of course.
If Mary and John raised 4 children, loved them, worried about them,
laughed with them - then the sentence is correct.
They are children and should be shown as children.
Labels are fine for canned soup but with people .........
A.
Tom Montgomery wrote:
If there was no legal adoption then the child should not be listed as
such......she should be listed with her own bio nuclear family. That
said, if the bio family is blood related then that is the end of it
(notes of course to clarify) but if she was the child of a non
related family, i. e. friend, and raised as one of their own then it
is not so easy. You can certainly show this individual in the
"adoptive" family as well but be very clear with your explanation as
to just who she is and the circumstances as to the connection with
the new family. Or, you can leave her off the children listing and in
notes, or an event, lay out the situation in detail. If you decide to
list her be sure to use the proper surname, not the name of her new
family as this would be incorrect. I see nothing wrong with showing
her as a child as long as the name is correct and details are
recorded elsewhere.
Tom.........
Hi, Tom
you wrote
I did not receive this original thread
no worries ... my problem is, an "adopted" child who is listed
exactly
the same as the biological children in the family sentence, thus
"John Lewis and Elspeth Beatson married ... they had four children,
Elizabeth, John, Janet and James."
Because the surnames are not shown, you can't tell that Elizabeth was
_not_ their biological child, her surname was _not_ Lewis but
Morwood.
if the last name was not changed then the individual
*usually* is not a court ordered adoption.
there was never a
formal adoption process.....the term used, however, was "adopted".
In
these cases the individual can be placed in both families but
"adopted" should be used *only" when it is a legal court action.
I have found no record of formal adoption, but the word "adoption"
was
always used in the family. So what does one call the relationship??
Cheers,
Mary Young
Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
To unsubscribe please visit:
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
To unsubscribe please visit:
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
