Note: If you decide to

[Pamela H in Texas]

do things in whatever way seems fit to meet your goals, someone else may figure you out, at least to some degree.

 

Young woman has child.

Young woman's boyfriend has no interest in child or mother.

Mother gives child his last name anyway.

Young woman finds a husband.

Young woman's husband signs hospital paperwork saying he is the father.

State issues new birth certificate.

Family goes on with their life.

Aunt decides to do family tree.

Aunt puts young woman's maiden name on child's "leaf" as last name.

Young woman sends email to Aunt giving child's full legal name.

Aunt asks when the adoption was.

Young woman says there wasn't an adoption, that that is the child's name.

Aunt calls young woman's mother for the information, wanting the tree to be accurate.

Aunt later emails young woman's mother, "found it. last name was *****"

ETA: Aunt has changed tree to show no last name

 

I completely see this from everyone's side, of course.

 

Really, genealogy should be accurate, right? And what is it about? Families who live together? legal families? blood relations? I'm not sure. I love reading about the stories, even when they aren't pretty or may seem "off" in some way. And I absolutely LOVE adoptions and other times men step in and are daddy to other people's children. Uncles, stepdads, whatever are AWESOME. And more than a few people throughout history were "foster parents" even before they were called that.

 

So I don't know that I think young woman needs to keep it so hush hush, but feel it is her right. And I don't know that Aunt is wrong in wanting her tree to be accurate.

 

BTW, child knows story so it isn't to keep it from child.

Edited October 15, 2012 by 2J5M9K

[Candid]

If the aunt is really into accuracy then she should use legal documents just as you would with long dead relatives, and birth certificates are available for that kind of inspection rather than this back and forth harassment of relatives. He failure to do this implies a double standard for her. Since she is not using documents she is implying that young woman and other relatives are lying since she does not accept their word. If she had been using documents from the beginning none of this would have been a problem.

[*********]

do things in whatever way seems fit to meet your goals, someone else may figure you out, at least to some degree.

 

Young woman has child.

Young woman's boyfriend has no interest in child or mother.

Mother gives child his last name anyway.

Young woman finds a husband.

Young woman's husband signs hospital paperwork saying he is the father.

State issues new birth certificate.

Family goes on with their life.

Aunt decides to do family tree.

Aunt puts young woman's maiden name on child's "leaf" as last name.

Young woman sends email to Aunt giving child's full legal name.

Aunt asks when the adoption was.

Young woman says there wasn't an adoption, that that is the child's name.

Aunt calls young woman's mother for the information, wanting the tree to be accurate.

Aunt later emails young woman's mother, "found it. last name was *****" Does say she will leave it alone though.

 

I completely see this from everyone's side, of course.

 

Really, genealogy should be accurate, right? And what is it about? Families who live together? legal families? blood relations? I'm not sure. I love reading about the stories, even when they aren't pretty or may seem "off" in some way. And I absolutely LOVE adoptions and other times men step in and are daddy to other people's children. Uncles, stepdads, whatever are AWESOME. And more than a few people throughout history were "foster parents" even before they were called that.

 

So I don't know that I think young woman needs to keep it so hush hush, but feel it is her right. And I don't know that Aunt is wrong in wanting her tree to be accurate.

 

BTW, child knows story so it isn't to keep it from child.

 

Hunh. I don't see what's wrong with listing the child's last name as whatever is on his birth certificate. He is the child's father, for better or worse. Legally and otherwise. The child's biological father is nothing but a sperm donor at this point, right? He doesn't even ever see the child? Sounds like the husband is the father in all senses of the word besides 'technically/biologically'.

 

I'd go with the last name the mother has listed on the child's birth certificate. To put anything ese is, well, kinda insulting I think.

[Kathryn]

If the aunt is really into accuracy then she should use legal documents just as you would with long dead relatives, and birth certificates are available for that kind of inspection rather than this back and forth harassment of relatives. He failure to do this implies a double standard for her. Since she is not using documents she is implying that young woman and other relatives are lying since she does not accept their word. If she had been using documents from the beginning none of this would have been a problem.

 

In many states you can't obtain a birth certificate unless you are the parent of the person, the person, or sometimes the child of the person, unless the person is deceased.

[Mrs Mungo]

Geneaology serves several different purposes. Thing is, in this case? In a hundred years? They are going to be following the trail with paperwork (even if the paperwork is electronic now) legal documents that show husband as child's biological father. The aunt is just trying to lock in that trail of paperwork for later generations. Eat: Sorry, what I typed here was not clear. I meant to say that there were 2 different documents with only the second showing the husband as the child's father.

 

Someday, someone (like me) might be trying to track down a possible genetic disease in the family. Knowing exactly who is and is not blood related can become important at that point.

 

If she is on ancestry, then you cannot see living people in a public tree. So, it might be less of a concern than the family realizes.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Unicorn.]

Geneaology serves several different purposes. Thing is, in this case? In a hundred years? They are going to be following the trail with paperwork (even if the paperwork is electronic now) legal documents that show husband as child's biological father. The aunt is just trying to lock in that trail of paperwork for later generations.

 

Someday, someone (like me) might be trying to track down a possible genetic disease in the family. Knowing exactly who is and is not blood related bcan become important at that point.

 

If she is on ancestry, then you cannot see living people in a public tree. So, it might be less of a concern than the family realizes.

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

I'd tell aunt some very unpleasant words and that's the last time I'd have contact with her.

 

The paperwork is going to show husband as father. Husbsnd's last name as kid's last name. The end.

 

The aunt is being an insulting whatsit.

 

Ug. I hate geneology stuff bc of this carp.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ug. I hate geneology stuff bc of this carp.

 

Again, some of us have extremely good reason to try and track actual blood relatives. My son has a lung disorder. so does my mom's cousin. tracking other people in the family with possible lung conditions is tough. The fact that the "sperm donor" has a child could be a key piece of information for someone else in his family, even he is a father by biology only.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Martha, I do agree with that somewhat.

It seems disrespectful to refuse to put a name or to put whatever name you wish.

At the same time, I agree with Mrs Mungo that the tree isn't accurate biologically

by saying the child is YW's husband's.

 

On my tree, I have two branches, one for biological and one for legal when the two are different (and I know it).

So if you click on my husband's name, for example, you can get his legal father's branch as well as his biological father's branch.

The default is the father who raised him since his biological father died when he was 6 weeks old.

 

I do agree that it is the aunt's tree and she can do whatever she wishes with it.

But it seems disrespectful to me not to put what the YW and/or child wishes also.

 

BLAH!

[*********]

Again, some of us have extremely good reason to try and track actual blood relatives. My son has a lung disorder. so does my mom's cousin. tracking other people in the family with possible lung conditions is tough. The fact that the "sperm donor" has a child could be a key piece of information for someone else in his family, even he is a father by biology only.

 

Intersting point, Mrs. Mungo.

 

Is there any way to note something on the geneology? Like the Child's name is _____, but child has _______ as biological father.

 

However, if bio father is not involved/around at all, it might not matter. Tracking him down for medical records could be near impossible if he's checked out of the kid's life completely, you know? That's true for me with my bio mom. I mean, at least I have her sisters I'm in contact with to get second hand info; but I have no idea how to contact my bio mom for any medical info; haven't known how to get ahold of her in over 15 years.

[Haiku]

The aunt is being an insulting whatsit.

 

I'll see your whatsit and raise you a wench.

 

I spent years putting together a genealogy of my family. It took much of my time and interest in my teens and in college. I have traced my family back to the 1630s.

 

I lost all interest in it when I adopted my kids.

 

The aunt is being intentionally insulting to make a point. What a witch. It's on par with labeling adopted kids as "adopted," or, even worse, "NBR": not blood related.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

tracking other people in the family with possible lung conditions is tough. The fact that the "sperm donor" has a child could be a key piece of information for someone else in his family, even he is a father by biology only.

 

But you don't really have a right to that information. I'm not saying that it's not important for you to have or that I don't understand why you would want it, but in reality, the information isn't really yours for the asking if someone else chooses to record it differently.

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

But you don't really have a right to that information. I'm not saying that it's not important for you to have or that I don't understand why you would want it, but in reality, the information isn't really yours for the asking if someone else chooses to record it differently.

 

Tara

 

This.

 

And it's not relavent. If you want to know if you have a lung disorder - go to the dr. Or have a genetic study done on yourself.

 

And geneology doesn't track accurate medical records. Except possibly cause of death on a death certificate.

 

I think people have even less rights to medical records than geneology. So fron my perspective that's sure not helping your cause.

 

In fact, I'm seriously considering filing a complaint where my sister works. She works in medical billing. And makes an effort to pull up info on family. To say I'm furious is an understatement. But since she would likely be fired for it, I'm trying to temper my reaction. Unsuccessfully so far.

[Mrs Mungo]

But you don't really have a right to that information. I'm not saying that it's not important for you to have or that I don't understand why you would want it, but in reality, the information isn't really yours for the asking if someone else chooses to record it differently.

 

The reverse is also true. If I know X isn't a child's bio father and list their bio dad as their father on the tree that I am creating, then that is my call and it is in no way intended to be insulting. Facts should not be insulting. :confused: There are *many, many* remarriages and step families in my family, even those that happened a long, long time ago.

 

I have no idea how some of those women felt about their husbands or the unrelated children that they brought into their home. I just know how the paper trail plays out. So, it is not insulting for me to list so-and-so as the father of such-and-such, even though the mom married another man when baby was 2 months old when it happened a hundred years ago, but if it was recent then I am being insulting? Sorry, does not compute.

[StartingOver]

Genealogy is about blood lines. My husband was born a Davis ( his biological fathers name ) Then adopted by his grandparents. I have both names, his biological connected to his father, then his adoption by his grandparents.

 

I believe the Aunt should put the child's fathers name, and then the second father as adopted, or list under other names. A note could clarify for future generations.

 

The man who signed the birth certificate is not the biological father, plain and simple. The child has no blood tie to him.

[Mrs Mungo]

And it's not relavent. If you want to know if you have a lung disorder - go to the dr. Or have a genetic study done on yourself.

 

This show your extreme amount of ignorance as far as how much we know about genetics. You think we haven't done that? Good grief. Do you know how many genes can cause lung disorders? No, obviously you don't have a clue. We didn't either until it became clear that my son has an unknown progressive disease. My mom's cousin (around her age and she is 59) is dying of an UNKNOWN progressive lung disease. I pray you never know what we have been through.

[Mrs Mungo]

Genealogy is about blood lines. My husband was born a Davis ( his biological fathers name ) Then adopted by his grandparents. I have both names, his biological connected to his father, then his adoption by his grandparents.

 

I believe the Aunt should put the child's fathers name, and then the second father as adopted, or list under other names. A note could clarify for future generations.

 

The man who signed the birth certificate is not the biological father, plain and simple. The child has no blood tie to him.

 

That is what I would do. And I would treat that child like any other child in the family. A record of blood ties has nothing whatsoever to do with how one is treated.

[SKL]

The aunt should have gone with what the child's mother said as soon as the child's mother said it.

 

The whole point of legal adoption is to treat adoptees the same as biological children. In this case apparently an adoption was not needed for whatever reason, but whatever the birth certificate says is legal, unless it's fraudulent (which doesnt' sound like the case here).

 

I understand the desire to have the biological history for health reasons, but in my opinion the interest of treating adoptees as "real relatives" (which they are) is more important as far as family trees go.

 

I'm not a fan of the family tree project at all as something "everyone" needs to do. If you're into that, great, but some of us have little or no info about bio parents/ancestors or would rather not think about them for whatever reasons.

[Candid]

In many states you can't obtain a birth certificate unless you are the parent of the person, the person, or sometimes the child of the person, unless the person is deceased.

 

True enough but the aunt didn't eve ask the mom for a birth certificate. If she'd been doing that all along then she would have simply got the same thing for each person on the family tree. No insult, not problem. Instead she's doing it verbally and when given a verbal answer refused to believe it.

 

I will say that if you want a genealogy to be provable you must have legal documentation. No, getting in the DAR without papers.

[Murphy101]

It boils down to gossip then.

 

Fact is if the aunt had not been told anything, all she would know is the current birth certificate that lists husband as the father.

 

Fact is if blood is the primary concern, paper trail doesn't tell you that.

 

It's not as though no married woman ever birthed another guy's baby.

[Haiku]

if it was recent then I am being insulting? Sorry, does not compute.

 

Yes, when you make a family document that the family knows about and you mark certain people out as different, it is insulting. If it's that important to her to have a genetically accurate chart, she can have a private one for herself, and the one she shares with family can reflect the actual family dynamics.

 

I have old family records that used to say "White Pedigree" on them until I marked it out. What if someone in my family made a family tree and marked it as such, then marked my children as black? Is it factually accurate? Of course. Is it insulting and unnecessary? Yes.

 

Tara

Edited October 15, 2012 by TaraTheLiberator
typo

[Murphy101]

This show your extreme amount of ignorance as far as how much we know about genetics. You think we haven't done that? Good grief. Do you know how many genes can cause lung disorders? No, obviously you don't have a clue. We didn't either until it became clear that my son has an unknown progressive disease. My mom's cousin (around her age and she is 59) is dying of an UNKNOWN progressive lung disease. I pray you never know what we have been through.

 

Your own ignorance is rather apparent too. I'm aware of the limits of genetic testing. In also aware it's more accurate than heresay of an ancestry tree. And knowing the aunt has it too isn't changing whether anyone else has it, so it seems more like a message of doom than helpful information.

[SKL]

With all due respect, some of you are proving yourselves very naive. Just because a record says someone is X's father doesn't mean his sperm was involved in conceiving X. A significant percentage of kids born in all times were conceived by someone not married to the mom / not listed on the birth record. :) Sometimes even the mom listed is a fib (granny listed as mom to protect unmarried teen mom).

 

I'm a little confused. Are we saying that people interested in geneology ignore adoptees? For what purpose? Is it not of interest that there were adoptees in a family?

[Candid]

This show your extreme amount of ignorance as far as how much we know about genetics. You think we haven't done that? Good grief. Do you know how many genes can cause lung disorders? No, obviously you don't have a clue. We didn't either until it became clear that my son has an unknown progressive disease. My mom's cousin (around her age and she is 59) is dying of an UNKNOWN progressive lung disease. I pray you never know what we have been through.

 

I've been through this with my husband and heart disease. First, having your son's complete genome is now doable and although not cheap it could be done: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/18/160958948/of-genetic-sequencing-grows-so-do-privacy-fears No relatives needed.

 

However, even finding other cases of heart disease in the family tree isn't particularly helpful because you will likely not know all the possible causes. I found several death that are problematic and I know which side of the family they appear in, but because many happened long ago, there's not much information. In my own family it would be easy to say I might be at risk of having a stroke because my grandmother had one, but knowing she also smoked two packs of cigarettes a day makes me much less worried.

[SKL]

The fact that the aunt is sharing the family tree with the extended family suggests that her main purpose is not tracking genetic disorders.

 

Also, there is very limited benefit to tracking genetics for medical purposes. Most of us don't really have an accurate picture of our relatives' health situation more than a couple of generations back. Even now they list "natural causes" or "old age" as cause of death for many people. Even now you can't really rely on accurate diagnoses and honesty about them. Go back several decades, and it's largely a guessing game.

[Mrs Mungo]

Your own ignorance is rather apparent too. I'm aware of the limits of genetic testing. In also aware it's more accurate than heresay of an ancestry tree. And knowing the aunt has it too isn't changing whether anyone else has it, so it seems more like a message of doom than helpful information.

 

You are not getting what I am saying. If you can track blood relatives who died of lung issues and/or have known lung issues, then you can start tracking information to I prove knowledge about genetic diseases. How in the heck do you think genetic studies happen? They have certainly never happened in a vacuum of information or with information about only one person.

 

With all due respect, some of you are proving yourselves very naive. Just because a record says someone is X's father doesn't mean his sperm was involved in conceiving X. A significant percentage of kids born in all times were conceived by someone not married to the mom / not listed on the birth record. :) Sometimes even the mom listed is a fib (granny listed as mom to protect unmarried teen mom).

 

I think if you actually studied genealogy, then you would be surprised at what you can find out. I don't just track birth certificates. There are census records, written family records (many with notes), letters, journals and much more.

 

I'm a little confused. Are we saying that people interested in geneology ignore adoptees? For what purpose? Is it not of interest that there were adoptees in a family?

 

We do not ignore adopted children. We simply note them as adopted.

 

Tara, I come from a mixed race heritage. This is a fact. I don't find it insulting.

[Impish]

This is exactly why I haven't tackled my family history, let alone Wolf's.

 

Frankly, it's a guessing game as to who our genetic fathers are, since neither of our birth mothers are/were known for honesty, or monogamy. WE know *who* is cited on our records, but no real way of knowing if it's remotely accurate. (Both were married at the time of our birth, so their then dh are listed)

 

Add in adoption, step parenting, and other interesting issues, and it's a headache and a half.

[Mrs Mungo]

I've been through this with my husband and heart disease. First, having your son's complete genome is now doable and although not cheap it could be done: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/18/160958948/of-genetic-sequencing-grows-so-do-privacy-fears No relatives needed.

 

Which, is useless information without looking for a specific problem. Tracking people who are alive NOW (which was the question in the OP) and possibly have a similar issue is what I am talking about. I come from a large family. Small families would probably find it all less helpful.

[Mrs Mungo]

The fact that the aunt is sharing the family tree with the extended family suggests that her main purpose is not tracking genetic disorders.

 

Either way, why assign nefarious intent? My dad's cousin has tracked one branch of our tree to the 1400s. There are all sorts of notes about second marriages, adoptions, children for whom the father is unknown and more. I don't think it is intended to be insulting in any way. Now, I do think it is better to have a tree like ancestry where information about living people is limited, unless you have been invited specifically to that tree.

[Farrar]

Yes, when you make a family document that the family knows about and you mark certain people out as different, it is insulting. If it's that important to her to have a genetically accurate chart, she can have a private one for herself, and the one she shares with family can reflect the actual family dynamics.

 

But couldn't it be true from the opposite side? I mean, people used to do these things as a purity of lineage nonsense and they used to include certain people and not others and use documentation to hide that people were adopted or that children were conceived too early or whatever. If you're proud of your heritage and don't want it hidden, why not include it to get a full picture of the family history?

 

In this particular case, it does seem like the aunt was being a bit of a busybody and trying to push things in a rude way.

[SKL]

Either way, why assign nefarious intent? My dad's cousin has tracked one branch of our tree to the 1400s. There are all sorts of notes about second marriages, adoptions, children for whom the father is unknown and more. I don't think it is intended to be insulting in any way. Now, I do think it is better to have a tree like ancestry where information about living people is limited, unless you have been invited specifically to that tree.

 

I'm not assigning nefarious intent, I'm saying on a tree meant to be shared with the extended family, refusing to include a relative's child's legal last name is hurtful. What, does she think leaving him nameless, or preserving his original last name / link to the deadbeat bio dad, is going to be good for someone's health someday?

[UnsinkableKristen]

Sorry, I think the Aunt was just being rude. She isn't looking for genetic information to uncover diseases. She sounds like she's just looking for gossip under a "But it's for Genealogy!" cover.

 

Some information is private and sensitive. It can especially be so if it is current information. Being interested in genealogy as a hobby does not give you a free pass to dig into private lives.

[Murphy101]

I'm not assigning nefarious intent, I'm saying on a tree meant to be shared with the extended family, refusing to include a relative's child's legal last name is hurtful. What, does she think leaving him nameless, or preserving his original last name / link to the deadbeat bio dad, is going to be good for someone's health someday?

 

Indeed. It won't. That's total blarney.

 

Even living family is very sketchy on accuracy for medical history. It's fiction to say its useful. It just isn't. Current genome studies are more accurate than anything some aunt might tell you.

 

Ug. Gives me the willies thinking my kids might listen to my sister about family history and medical info. It's pure heresay and speculation. At best.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not assigning nefarious intent, I'm saying on a tree meant to be shared with the extended family, refusing to include a relative's child's legal last name is hurtful. What, does she think leaving him nameless, or preserving his original last name / link to the deadbeat bio dad, is going to be good for someone's health someday?

 

I am referring to the thread in general. Several people *are* assigning nefarious intent. The OP said nothing about not including the child's legal last name, only adding a name. I think she is just trying to be accurate from a genealogical perspective. AGAIN, I agree that is better to keep the names of living relatives private.

 

For example, if you view it publicly, then my tree lists my sisters as "living daughter" of my parents and my parents are listed as "living daughter" and "living son" of their parents (who have all passed on, so you can see their names). You cannot see the names of living people at all unless you have an account and we have both linked our accounts. Doing THAT would have saved the aunt a lot of backbiting.

[Mrs Mungo]

Indeed. It won't. That's total blarney.

 

Even living family is very sketchy on accuracy for medical history. It's fiction to say its useful. It just isn't. Current genome studies are more accurate than anything some aunt might tell you.

 

Genome studies are NON-EXISTENT without families willing to participate and give medical history.

[Murphy101]

Sorry, I think the Aunt was just being rude. She isn't looking for genetic information to uncover diseases. She sounds like she's just looking for gossip under a "But it's for Genealogy!" cover.

 

Some information is private and sensitive. It can especially be so if it is current information. Being interested in genealogy as a hobby does not give you a free pass to dig into private lives.

 

AMEN!!!

 

And even dead I don't like it. If my grandmother didn't want to tell anyone she was a hussy, then who the heck are we to smear her after she's dead?

 

This is also why I will never ever keep a diary or journal. Or be sentimental about papers. Thanks to geneology I am not leaving anything for anyone to interpret God knows how. :/

 

I just see no benefit to it. None.

[Murphy101]

Genome studies are NON-EXISTENT without families willing to participate and give medical history.

 

No. Genome studies are non existent without families giving blood and having regular detailed personal medical records kept of them over a long period of time.

 

A patient saying their Grammy died of some whatever issue is almost useless. Having a grandparent, parent and self participate in a long term study of actual documentation of their health with regular blood work and actual medical files? That absolutely helped the genome projects and still does.

[Mrs Mungo]

No. Genome studies are non existent without families giving blood and having regular detailed personal medical records kept of them over a long period of time.

 

A patient saying their Grammy died of some whatever issue is almost useless. Having a grandparent, parent and self participate in a long term study of actual documentation of their health with regular blood work and actual medical files? That absolutely helped the genome projects and still does.

 

We are talking about people are are *still alive* in modern times. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[SKL]

Yeah, I know some people who may or may not even realize their "dad" isn't their bio father. Those who were close to the parents at the time might know it. Sometimes the "dad" knows, sometimes not, but a "dad" often desires that the child not know. I wouldn't want a child to find that kind of thing out through the grape vine (so to speak).

 

In general, it's my understanding that the law presumes a mom's husband is the father of any child who's born during a marriage. I think this is a very good law. The situation described in the OP is not much different - a young kid being treated as the son of the man his mom is married to, without having to be "adopted."

[fhjmom]

do things in whatever way seems fit to meet your goals, someone else may figure you out, at least to some degree.

 

Young woman has child.

Young woman's boyfriend has no interest in child or mother.

Mother gives child his last name anyway.

Young woman finds a husband.

Young woman's husband signs hospital paperwork saying he is the father.

State issues new birth certificate.

Family goes on with their life.

Aunt decides to do family tree.

Aunt puts young woman's maiden name on child's "leaf" as last name.

Young woman sends email to Aunt giving child's full legal name.

Aunt asks when the adoption was.

Young woman says there wasn't an adoption, that that is the child's name.

Aunt calls young woman's mother for the information, wanting the tree to be accurate.

Aunt later emails young woman's mother, "found it. last name was *****"

ETA: Aunt has changed tree to show no last name

 

I completely see this from everyone's side, of course.

 

Really, genealogy should be accurate, right? And what is it about? Families who live together? legal families? blood relations? I'm not sure. I love reading about the stories, even when they aren't pretty or may seem "off" in some way. And I absolutely LOVE adoptions and other times men step in and are daddy to other people's children. Uncles, stepdads, whatever are AWESOME. And more than a few people throughout history were "foster parents" even before they were called that.

 

So I don't know that I think young woman needs to keep it so hush hush, but feel it is her right. And I don't know that Aunt is wrong in wanting her tree to be accurate.

 

BTW, child knows story so it isn't to keep it from child.

 

There are two separate pieces of information in this scenario: who is the child's biological father and what is the child's name. If the aunt felt it important to track biology, and the mother acknowledged paternity of the first man, then that could have been included - but it sounds like in this scenario the husband actually attested to paternity, even if it was after the fact. The record was "corrected" to show the husband's name as father and the child's true legal name is now what is shown an that record. That is the information the aunt should have recorded on the tree. The child's name should be recorded as the mother requested according to the child's legal name currently.

 

My DS has a different legal last name than was shown on his original birth certificate. If someone put that last name on a family tree, it would tick me off! It isn't his name and a current birth certificate would show his current legal name, so to use the old one would serve no purpose other than to stir up cr@p. if a genealogist felt the need to note the name of my XH/DS's biological whatever, then I wouldn't have an issue with that, but X's name is still listed on DS's BC with his current last name.

 

In he case above, husband and new last name are listed on the BC. That is the info that should be listed and aunt needs to think more about the feelings of her current living relatives than worrying about some minute details over facts she really doesn't know (or is any of her business) in the name of "future generations".

[Murphy101]

We are talking about people are are *still alive* in modern times. You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

No, I'm not.

 

I am also referring to the living in modern times.

 

A person coming in and saying "I know my granny died of or is sufferring X." Has zero scientific value for a genome project. The scientist does not have any legal means of verifying the claim or studying the subject. It doesn't matter if granny is dead or alive. Without her body or documentation from someone who did scientifically/medically study her body first hand - it's useless heresay. It's certainly not something that meets the rigor of scientific challenge to the point it can further a study.

 

Case in point, what if it turns out this child actually is not biologically either of those men's child? Or the hospital mixed up babies?

[akmommy]

It boils down to gossip then.

 

Fact is if the aunt had not been told anything, all she would know is the current birth certificate that lists husband as the father.

 

Fact is if blood is the primary concern, paper trail doesn't tell you that.

 

It's not as though no married woman ever birthed another guy's baby.

 

In Alaska if a woman is married at the time she gives birth her husband is the child's legal father until its contested by a possible bio father and proven otherwise. So my guess is that there are many children being raised and legally fathered by men they have no biological ties to. So it would be impossible to determine, even looking at legal documents, who was actually a blood relative and who isn't, at least with male lineage.

 

One may or may not put an asterisk in there, but if it is the child's legal name then it belongs on the tree.

Edited October 15, 2012 by akmommy

[Haiku]

I don't think it is intended to be insulting in any way.

 

There's no one around to be insulted; most of those people are dead. If, however, people are alive and would prefer that their personal information is recorded in a certain way, there is no reason not to honor their desire other than to be pedantic. This problem is easily solved by the aunt keeping a personal record with "the facts" but not publicly upsetting her relatives. People who care about their relatives do not intentionally upset them.

 

As far as the race thing, I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse to my point. If someone created a family record and deliberately and against my wishes marked my children out as different for the sole purpose of illustrating that difference, I would be angry.

 

"Look, we are a loving family, here's our tree," and "Look, we're all genetically related except for you" (or "all the same race, except for you") are very different, and you know it.

 

My sister-in-law created a photo collage of the grandchildren for my husband's grandmother. She put all the kids in order of age, except for mine. She put mine at the end. A nice row of white children, with my black children at the end. Clearly she was marking them out as different. Luckily, my mother-in-law demanded she change it.

 

The gracious thing for the aunt to do would have been to honor her niece's wishes as soon as she became aware that it was an issue to her niece. Unkindly, she insisted on being "right."

 

Tara

[Haiku]

I'd just like to add that this has been an issue in many adoptive families that I know, where the genealogical rules sticklers insist on being right at the expense of the feelings of their relatives. I feel that is self-centered and egotistical.

 

Tara

[Spryte]

There are two separate pieces of information in this scenario: who is the child's biological father and what is the child's name. [...] The child's name should be recorded as the mother requested according to the child's legal name currently.

 

In he case above, husband and new last name are listed on the BC. That is the info that should be listed and aunt needs to think more about the feelings of her current living relatives than worrying about some minute details over facts she really doesn't know (or is any of her business) in the name of "future generations".

 

Has the aunt specifically stated that she is compiling this info for medical info, to be based on genetics? I lost that part of the thread a bit, and am not sure if that was a tangent introduced later, or a part of the OP's info? I'm not addressing that here, just to be clear.

 

I am not a geneaologist, but my family is in close contact with a group of historians who study our ancestor and preserve his home and effects (founding father). We visited his home again when DS was a baby, for an event, and they immediately added him to the tree. They noted that he was adopted, used his full legal name, and requested *no* info regarding his birthfamily (we have it, but for privacy reasons likely would not have shared it anyway). (That reminds me, I should contact them about DD!)

 

Not excusing the bad behavior of the aunt (deleting a last name altogether, hurtful comments) ... It sounds to me like the question here might be the aunt's understanding of the legality of the child's name. Perhaps she doesn't understand that the change on the birth certificate made the husband the legal father? If, in niece's state, that was all that was necessary to complete a legal change, and to make husband the legal father, then that's baby's name. It sounds to me like aunt is questioning the legality of the change.

[Kathryn]

I havent done genealogy in over a decade, but even the primitive Family Tree Maker program I had back in the 90s allowed for multiple parental relationships and names to be given and you could pick which was the "main" relationship/name for display purposes. Reports could be generated to include or leave off whatever fields of information desired. I have no reason to believe the technology is worse today. Striving for accuracy in research is not gossip. As noted on this thread, we can't always know just from legal documents the truth behind biological paternity. However, when we know that Mom didn't meet Dad until a year after Baby was born, even though the birth certificate says he is the father, it's not gossip to record that information. We have that situation in our family, almost exactly the same as the OP except that Baby's original last name was Mom's last name. Baby is now in high school and has no idea. It's in my family tree though I've never included it on reports that I give out.

 

As Mrs. Mungo pointed out, geneaologists (and historians) use a variety of sources, not just legal documents, including all sorts of written, visual, and oral records. There are many cases in which oral history carries much more weight and truth than any legal document.

 

Personally, I made a decision in my tree to always use the name at birth as te "preferred" name. So, my Ukrainian grandfather who later Anglicized his name is recorded with his birth name. My great-grandfather who was adopted by the downstairs neighbors after his father ran off and his drug-addicted mother died is recorded by his birth name. And my family member whose birth certificate now reflects that the only father he's ever had is actually his birth father is listed under his true birth name. This in no way diminishes the relationship he has with his father. It's just the truth. It shows in part the myriad ways in which families are made. When we whitewash family trees, we lose that. More so than as a geneaologist, as a historian, it's disturbing to see people so ready to twist events or cover them up in the name of perpetual privacy.

[Kathryn]

Has the aunt specifically stated that she is compiling this info for medical info, to be based on genetics? I lost that part of the thread a bit, and am not sure if that was a tangent introduced later, or a part of the OP's info? I'm not addressing that here, just to be clear.

 

I am not a geneaologist, but my family is in close contact with a group of historians who study our ancestor and preserve his home and effects (founding father). We visited his home again when DS was a baby, for an event, and they immediately added him to the tree. They noted that he was adopted, used his full legal name, and requested *no* info regarding his birthfamily (we have it, but for privacy reasons likely would not have shared it anyway). (That reminds me, I should contact them about DD!)

 

Not excusing the bad behavior of the aunt (deleting a last name altogether, hurtful comments) ... It sounds to me like the question here might be the aunt's understanding of the legality of the child's name. Perhaps she doesn't understand that the change on the birth certificate made the husband the legal father? If, in niece's state, that was all that was necessary to complete a legal change, and to make husband the legal father, then that's baby's name. It sounds to me like aunt is questioning the legality of the change.

 

I question the legality as well in my family member's case. To put the name there, you are promising that he was the biological father. In my family's case, Someone else out there is the actual bio-dad who never had a chance to know that because Mom never told him. If he came across them someday, he could challenge the birth certificate and win on the basis of his genetics. Putting someone's name illegally on a legal document doesn't make it legal. It also doesn't mean that I think any less of the relationship between the man who took on the role of father and the child in question.

[SKL]

More so than as a geneaologist, as a historian, it's disturbing to see people so ready to twist events or cover them up in the name of perpetual privacy.

 

I guess when you've built your family via adoption, the relative importance of different things changes.

 

I used to be very interested in my personal biological roots, but as another poster said, that disappeared when I adopted children who do not and never will share those biological roots. Especially since they are unlikely to have any practical connection to their own biological roots. It would be kind of like taunting to say "see how awesome my heritage is, too bad you don't have any."

 

It's not about hiding the facts about my kids' lives. It's about not rubbing it in. Lord knows my kids' life history is more thoroughly documented than any bio child's will ever be. And it's interesting and positive. But it doesn't mean they ought to be denied a normal branch on a family tree that includes me. I can't even imagine someone deciding that their legal name doesn't qualify because they weren't born with it.

[Mrs Mungo]

There's no one around to be insulted; most of those people are dead. If, however, people are alive and would prefer that their personal information is recorded in a certain way, there is no reason not to honor their desire other than to be pedantic. This problem is easily solved by the aunt keeping a personal record with "the facts" but not publicly upsetting her relatives. People who care about their relatives do not intentionally upset them.

 

I agree with not publicly upsetting anyone. Hence, the rule of thumb about not making information about living relatives public. That's why it is wise to follow that.

 

As far as the race thing, I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse to my point. If someone created a family record and deliberately and against my wishes marked my children out as different for the sole purpose of illustrating that difference, I would be angry.

 

Marking them as adopted on a genealogical chart is not deliberately illustrating a difference between them and the rest of the family. Therefore, I do not understand what point you are trying to make.

 

"Look, we are a loving family, here's our tree," and "Look, we're all genetically related except for you" (or "all the same race, except for you") are very different, and you know it.

 

My sister-in-law created a photo collage of the grandchildren for my husband's grandmother. She put all the kids in order of age, except for mine. She put mine at the end. A nice row of white children, with my black children at the end. Clearly she was marking them out as different. Luckily, my mother-in-law demanded she change it.

 

I cannot imagine anything like that happening in my family. So, it is hard to relate to my circumstances.

 

The gracious thing for the aunt to do would have been to honor her niece's wishes as soon as she became aware that it was an issue to her niece. Unkindly, she insisted on being "right."

 

 

Again, my opinion is the best thing to do is keep information you are tracking about living relatives private.

[SKL]

I question the legality as well in my family member's case. To put the name there, you are promising that he was the biological father. In my family's case, Someone else out there is the actual bio-dad who never had a chance to know that because Mom never told him. If he came across them someday, he could challenge the birth certificate and win on the basis of his genetics. Putting someone's name illegally on a legal document doesn't make it legal. It also doesn't mean that I think any less of the relationship between the man who took on the role of father and the child in question.

 

Really? Legal dad does not equal bio dad. I understand not wanting to mislead, but every adult should understand that a "father" might be legally but not biologically the father, e.g., in the case where the wife had a one-night stand or was pregnant with someone else's child at the time of marriage.

 

If you want to make notes for your own private interest, that's fine. But I would not share with others in cases like what you've described.

 

I understand using the legal name at birth (or ASAP thereafter) if that is your consistent rule, but switching out the legal last name because you happen to know a secret is inconsistent with that rule.