On 12/7/2017 7:23 PM, Ron Chenier wrote: > I’ve just noticed that a child who I added to my database with both Father > as ADO and Mother as ADO parents is still related to me according to TMG > Relations. > > I’ve refreshed the relationship in Preferences but it still indicates we’re > related. > > If the child is adopted how can it be related to me? > > Is there an explanation for this? Ron, Yes, there is. So far as TMG is concerned, there is only one kind of parent/child relationship - a biological one. No matter what label you put on it -- adopted, step, god, etc. -- if you make it primary TMG considers it a biological relationship. Terry Reigel

Just curious--how do people handle this? I've been aware that TMG considers any primary parent-child relationship as if it wee biological, and have just put up with it knowing that adopted family members and their descendants end up looking biologically related to me. I wouldn't want to leave them out of family trees, but... I know we've gone over this in years past, but that may have been before DNA testing was common. Karla Huebner calypsospots AT gmail.com On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Terry Reigel <[email protected]> wrote: > So far as TMG is concerned, there is only one kind of parent/child > relationship - a biological one. No matter what label you put on it -- > adopted, step, god, etc. -- if you make it primary TMG considers it a > biological relationship. > > Terry Reigel > >

Actually, TMG does NOT consider primary parent-child relationships as 'Biological', but it considers them to be Genealogical. In the family section, where children are listed, the heading is NOT Biological Children of father and mother, but children of. Through the long history of man and his recording of genealogies, non-biological children that have been brought into a family have frequently been considered 'heirs' with all the rights and privileges of a true biological child, and at times a biological child (especially if born out of wed-lock) was cut off from those rights. The marking of a parent-child relationship as primary really just means to treat it as a Genealogical relationship. Biological Relationships (and before DNA testing the apparent/presumed biological relationships) established default relationships, but was in no way the sole determination of if a genealogical relationship was considered fully present. The classic standard formats don't deal well with unusual combinations, where a person may wish to indicate more than two parents (and even some minor difficulties if it isn't one father and one mother). There often are ways to actually deal with it, but the mostly mechanical methods used by software don't handle them well. What TMG doesn't do is apply any sort of formatting to indicate non-biological relationships, which sort of causes some of the thinking that it treats all relationships as biological, but such formatting was never 'required' even if it wasn't uncommon to do so when building charts by hand, and not fully standardized as to methods used. On 12/7/17 8:50 PM, Karla Huebner wrote: > Just curious--how do people handle this? I've been aware that TMG considers > any primary parent-child relationship as if it wee biological, and have > just put up with it knowing that adopted family members and their > descendants end up looking biologically related to me. I wouldn't want to > leave them out of family trees, but... > > I know we've gone over this in years past, but that may have been before > DNA testing was common. > > Karla Huebner > calypsospots AT gmail.com > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Terry Reigel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So far as TMG is concerned, there is only one kind of parent/child >> relationship - a biological one. No matter what label you put on it -- >> adopted, step, god, etc. -- if you make it primary TMG considers it a >> biological relationship. >> >> Terry Reigel >> -- Richard Damon