>>A child will print out under her natural >>parents and not under a step parent (unless the pedigree has >>been falsified of course) and it would be improper for it to >>display otherwise. >It is just totally absurd to say that it is improper to show an >adopted child as a child in her adopted family. My problem in this regard is actually on a descendant report rather than on an ancestor report. So everything is not fixed by going to a descendant report. I produce a descendant report for family reunions, so living people are included (unlike what I post on the Internet). People like seeing the reports, but they get really picky about what I consider minor problems (off by a few days for an event, or having an event in the wrong county). Leaving a person out of the report is more than a minor problem. My first cousin married a woman who had a young child from a previous marriage. The child's father had nothing to do with the child, and the child was raised as the natural child of my cousin. However, I don't think my cousin ever officially adopted the child. Needless to say, the child does not appear in my report, and everybody notices that I "left out" the child. If my cousin actually adopted the child, would that cause the child to appear in the report? But if he didn't really adopt the child (I could ask him), is there some way I could add a "raised by" fact that would cause the child to appear in the report? I wouldn't want the report to say there was an adoption if there wasn't. I think the real problem is that people at a family reunion want a family history report. Family Origins (and all its competition) is a genealogy program and produces genealogy reports. The reunion in question is our Peters family reunion with descendants of Grandma and Grandpa Peters (actually, my mother's grandparents and my great grandparents). And this child was not a descendant of Grandma and Grandpa Peters, nor was she a spouse of a descendant. But spouses of descendants are not really descendants. They are spouses of descendants and parents of descendants, but they are not descendants. Would it really be too much of a stretch to have an option whereby siblings of descendants would be included, even if those siblings were not themselves descendants? Jerry Bryan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>Needless to say, the child does not appear in my report, and >everybody notices that I "left out" the child. The appropriate response would be "No, not left out; the child appears in the pedigree under his natural mother and father. You then go on to explain how genealogy traces blood lines while family history puts the flesh on the bones with all the details and show the fact and notes concerning the child. >If my cousin actually adopted the child, would that cause the >child to appear in the report? No, it won't. The child stays under his or her biological parents. The appropriate way to handle this situation is to insert an adoption fact and make the appropriate notes in both genealogies - under the biological parents and under the "adoptive" parent pair. >But if he didn't really adopt the child (I could ask him), is >there some way I could add a "raised by" fact that >would cause the child to appear in the report? I >wouldn't want the report to say there was an adoption if >there wasn't. FOW has a fact type for Adoption but yes, you can create a fact type called Raised by if you choose. You might handle the "formal" adoption issue this way: What is the child's last name? If the child's last name is that of the biological parent or the mother's maiden name, then don't show an adoption fact. If the name is that of the "adoptive" parent, then show it as an adoption. -- Happy Hunting!! -- Paul Houston, TX, USA ICQ #73314929 Researching: VA - WHITE,LIPSCOMB,HILL,JOHNSON,SAUNDERS, TALBOT,TATE,EVANS NC - SMITH, BOSWELL, RHODES, CAPEHART,MORRIS, MARSHE, BRITT,SHAW View my American Ancestry at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~paulrsmith **************** FREE Credit Card Referral Program. Quick money AND residual, lifetime income! CHECK IT OUT !! http://smithecomservices.tripod.com ***************************************

There is nothing in FOW that prevents you from defining the "Raised By" as a fact. Just define it. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Bryan" <c24m48@hotmail.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 8:57 AM Subject: [FO] Adopted and Unadopted Children > >>A child will print out under her natural > >>parents and not under a step parent (unless the pedigree has > >>been falsified of course) and it would be improper for it to > >>display otherwise. > > >It is just totally absurd to say that it is improper to show an > >adopted child as a child in her adopted family. > > My problem in this regard is actually on a descendant report rather than on > an ancestor report. So everything is not fixed by going to a descendant > report. > > I produce a descendant report for family reunions, so living people are > included (unlike what I post on the Internet). People like seeing the > reports, but they get really picky about what I consider minor problems (off > by a few days for an event, or having an event in the wrong county). > Leaving a person out of the report is more than a minor problem. > > My first cousin married a woman who had a young child from a previous > marriage. The child's father had nothing to do with the child, and the > child was raised as the natural child of my cousin. However, I don't think > my cousin ever officially adopted the child. > > Needless to say, the child does not appear in my report, and everybody > notices that I "left out" the child. If my cousin actually adopted the > child, would that cause the child to appear in the report? But if he didn't > really adopt the child (I could ask him), is there some way I could add a > "raised by" fact that would cause the child to appear in the report? I > wouldn't want the report to say there was an adoption if there wasn't. > > I think the real problem is that people at a family reunion want a family > history report. Family Origins (and all its competition) is a genealogy > program and produces genealogy reports. > > The reunion in question is our Peters family reunion with descendants of > Grandma and Grandpa Peters (actually, my mother's grandparents and my great > grandparents). And this child was not a descendant of Grandma and Grandpa > Peters, nor was she a spouse of a descendant. > > But spouses of descendants are not really descendants. They are spouses of > descendants and parents of descendants, but they are not descendants. Would > it really be too much of a stretch to have an option whereby siblings of > descendants would be included, even if those siblings were not themselves > descendants? > > Jerry Bryan > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > The "Family Origins® Wish List" http://formalsoft.com/wishlist.htm > ??? FAQ ??? -- http://www.graabek.com/fow/fofaq.html > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB