Jump to content


Photo

Adoption


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Hannah

Michael Hannah
  • Moderators
  • 2,733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Ranchos, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Genealogy, Computers

Posted 09 May 2008 - 10:45 AM

Since I am adopted, and there are other adoptions in my various lines, I have given considerable thought on how to record this situation in TMG. I deactivate and do not use the standard "Adoption" tag type to avoid confusion. I defined four custom tag types in the Other group for this situation: Adoptee, AdoptGive, Adopted, and AdoptLink. I also created two tag types in the Name group: Name-Adopted and Name-Birth.

When much of the data, including the parents, is unknown I use the Adoptee tag type, and have the child as the Principal. The child is set to one of two roles depending on the two possible situations. If I only know the birth name and the fact of adoption and have no information from that point, I set the role to "Ward". If I only know the adopted name and the fact of adoption and have no information before that point, I set the role to "Adoptee".
Adoptee Tag Type

Adoptee: "[P] was adopted<[D]><[L]><[M]>"
Ward: "[P] was given up for adoption<[D]><[L]><[M]>"
Witness: "[W] witnessed the adoption of [P] <[D]><[L]><[M0]><[WM]>"

When the parents are known, for the two separate events of disconnection from the birth parents and connection to the adopting parents I use the separate AdoptGive and Adopted tag types respectively with the parents as the Principals and the child(ren) as Witness(es). The disadvantage of the child as a Witness is that one is required to set the Preference for "Show witnessed events" to see these adoption events in the child’s Person View. As I always have that display preference set, it is not an issue for me. By having two separate tags it allows for the typical passage of time between these two events, which may even occur in separate locations. Further it decouples the two events, as either one may occur without the other. The children may be adopted as a result of being orphaned rather than due to a release of parental rights. Alternatively the parental rights may be released and the child put in an adoption home but never adopted.

The child would be a Witness using the role "child" on my AdoptGive event tag type, where the birth parents are the Principals using the roles "BirthMother" as P1 and "BirthFather" as P2. The tag has any source citations and gives details of the release of parental rights using a split memo. [M1] provides adoption details, [M2] an optional comment specific to the BirthMother, and [M3] an optional comment specific to the BirthFather. Each child’s sentence uses the [M1] adoption details and its own specific optional [WM]. This allows a single AdoptGive tag to be used when multiple children are given up for adoption at the same time. It even allows for linking others using the standard Witness role with their separate witness memos to this release of parental rights.
AdoptGive Tag Type

BirthMother (P1):
Male: "--BirthMother must be female"
Female: "[P]< and [PO]> gave [RG:child] up for adoption<[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [M2]>"

BirthFather (P2):
Male: "[P]< and [PO]> gave [RG:child] up for adoption<[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [M3]>"
Female: "--BirthFather must be male"

child: "[W] was given up for adoption by [P]< and [PO]><[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [WM]>"

Witness: "[W] witnessed [P] <and [PO]> giving [R:child] up for adoption<[M1]><[D]><[L]>.< [WM]>"

On my Adopted event tag the child would also be a Witness but using the role "adoptee", with the adopting parents as the two Principals using their role "Adoptor". I usually set the father to P1 and the mother to P2. This tag includes any citations such as court records and uses an unsplit memo for any details about the adoption. A single Adopted tag can be used when multiple children are adopted at the same time as a single event, each with their own unique [WM], regardless of whether they share birth parents, and even allows for linking others using the standard Witness role with their separate witness memos to this single adoption event.
Adopted Tag Type

Adoptor: "[P1] <and [P2]> adopted [R:Adoptee]<[D]><[L]><[M]>"
adoptee: "[W] was adopted by [P1] <and [P2]><[D]><[L]><[M0]><[WM]>"
Witness: "[W] witnessed the adoption of [R:Adoptee] by [P1] <and [P2]><[D]><[L]><[M0]><[WM]>"

Assuming a name change, the child could be assigned either or both of my two custom Name-Var tag types: Name-Birth and Name-Adopted. This allows either Name-Var tag to be marked Primary, and either name to be used as appropriate in events.
Name-Birth Tag Type

Principal: "[PP] birth name was [N] <[M]>"

Name-Adopted Tag Type

Male: "Upon adoption he was named [N] <[M]>"
Female: "Upon adoption she was named [N] <[M]>"

Either or both Name-Var tags could be created depending upon the information available. If I only create one TMG "person" for the child I might link both sets of parents, one using the "-bio" relationship tags and the other using "-ado", and then set whichever I prefer to Primary, accepting the consequences in various reports. Sometimes it is appropriate to create two separate TMG "persons" for this single child, where each "person" has only one set of parents linked and they are Primary. In addition to their "standard" Name-Var the "other" name can be noted with the appropriate Name-Var. These two TMG "persons" are linked with the custom AdoptLink tag type, P1 as the birth "person" using the role BirthName, and P2 as the adopted "person" using the role AdoptedName. The split memo uses [M1] as an optional memo for the BirthName sentence, and [M2] a separate optional memo for the AdoptedName.
AdoptLink Tag Type

BirthName (P1): "[P1] was named [P2+] following adoption<[D]><[L]>.< [M1]>"
AdoptedName (P2): "[P2] was named [P1+] prior to adoption<[D]><[L]>.< [M2]>"

Hope this gives people ideas,


Michael
See my book on how I customize TMG My Way.
My website.

#2 GenerationGoneBy

GenerationGoneBy
  • Senior Members
  • 887 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 May 2008 - 11:42 AM

Michael, Since I like to have the children's births show in the parents narratives, I include the mother and father on the child's birth tags.

Here are some of mine that might help others:
In addition to the CHILD role, I use:

When the parents are the birth parents:

Father: [:CR:][:TAB:][RG:Father]< and [RG:Mother]> became the parents of [R:Child] <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:]

Mother: [:CR:][:TAB:][RG:Mother]< and [RG:Father]> became the parents of [R:Child] <[D]> < [L]>.<[M]>[:NP:]


When someone other than the birth parents raise the child, but no formal adoption was done:

FatherRaised: [:CR:][:TAB:][R:FatherRaised] <and [R:MotherRaised]> raised, [R:Child] born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:]

MotherRaised: [:CR:][:TAB:][R:MotherRaised] <and [R:FatherRaised]> raised, [R:Child] born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP]

When a step parent raises a child:

FatherStep: [:CR:][:TAB:][R:FatherStep] raised his stepchild, [R:Child], child of [R:Mother] <and [R:Father]> born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:]

MotherStep: [:CR:][:TAB:][R:MotherStep] raised her stepchild, [R:Child], child of [R:Father] <and [R:Mother]> born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:]

FatherAdop: [:CR:][:TAB:][R:FatherAdop] adopted his child [R:Child], born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:] -I also have an adoption tag that would print as part of the narrative.

MotherAdop: [:CR:][:TAB:][R:MotherAdop] adopted her child [R:Child], born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:]

ParentsAdop: [:CR:][:TAB:][R:FatherAdop] and [R:MotherAdop] adopted their child [R:Child], born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:]

Note these tags sort on the child's BIRTH date, not the adoption date, or the point where the parent became the step parent. If you have an issue with that, DO NOT use them in the birth tag. Use an adoption or step tag instead. If you just want to show the relationship, you could exclude the sentence altogether. For most of my situations like this, I am using the STEP or ADOPTIVE parents as the biological parent. If the step-parent was born in 1965, married the parent, born in 1945, in 2005, and became a step-parent to the child born in 1995, I probably would exclude the sentence. IF I didn't the report would read: Sarah was born in 1965. Sarah raised her stepson Allen, born in 1995. She married John in 2005. That might be how I wanted the report to read. But if not, then I would use a custom step child tag that would read Sarah was born in 1965. She married John in 2005. Sarah raised her stepson Allen, born in 1995.

The report would be the same, but the step child tag would sort after the marriage. Allen's birth tag would sort before.


BUt if the child were born in 2005, and the adoptive parents adopted him in 2007, then I would probably use the sentences above. Just depends on the situation and how the couple want the relationship treated. I have seen some couples who didn't want anyone to know the child was adopted, other's who didn't want him treated as a biological child. I get the output I want either way. <G>



#3 Michael Hannah

Michael Hannah
  • Moderators
  • 2,733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Ranchos, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Genealogy, Computers

Posted 09 May 2008 - 04:15 PM

Yes, Teresa, I agree it is necessary to be sensitive to this issue and get the output "either way" depending upon the desires of the people involved. I have not (yet) found a situation that I cannot record and have the output to be as needed with these sets of tags.

I do understand, Teresa, about the desire of many for having the birth of the children in the parent's narrative. However, I firmly believe that these three events (Birth/AdoptGive/Adopted) are very different events and need to be recorded in TMG separately. I am personally opposed to having my Birth tag sentences say anything about adoption. For my purposes I would only have the birth parents as Witnesses to a Birth tag, but would not have the sentences of that tag say anything about the (usually later) adoption. I strongly prefer these three events (Birth/AdoptGive/Adopted) to be recorded as separate tags exactly so that I can choose to include or exclude or locally modify the sentences of these tags separately for reports concerning that person.

However, if one does use the method of having (only) birth parents as Witnesses to a Birth tag, and doesn't (also) link the adoptive parents, this (obviously) would cause the adoptive parents narrative to not include a sentence from that tag for that adopted child. When the situation is not sensitive my Adopted tag shows in the parents narrative instead of the Birth witness sentence. It makes the timing of the addition of the child into the family clear, and the memo can include data about the birth date, etc..

However, I have seen situations that are so sensitive (such as a living child not having been told they are adopted) that it is desirable for the adoptive parents to "appear" to be the birth parents. Even then in my database for my purposes I want to be able to keep track of the "truth" of the birth. In such a case I use the method of creating two separate TMG "persons" for this one child, the method I mentioned previously. I create one "person" with their birth name and linked birth parents and a separate "person" with their adopted name and adoptive parents linked "as if" they were birth parents. The BirthName "person" has their Birth tag and the AdoptGive tag. Then the AdoptedName "person" can now have its own Birth tag with the adoptive parents as "normal" birth parent Witnesses. I include the Adopted tag as well for this "person" to record that event, but may modify it locally to prevent it from printing. I also create the AdoptLink tag to make it easy for me to identify and switch between these two "people" but may either exclude that tag from reports or locally add sensitivity braces to the sentences so they do not print where not desired.

One thing I have learned, there are a great many ways to record this situation :D , and each family historian must do what they feel is appropriate to them. I simply urge people to put "somewhere" in their databases for the future "all" the information they have found. In my observation sooner or later the sensitivity of these situations seems to disappear. Further, I have constantly found it necessary and desirable to separate these three events (Birth/AdoptGive/Adopted) and strongly urge others to do the same.
Michael
See my book on how I customize TMG My Way.
My website.

#4 GenerationGoneBy

GenerationGoneBy
  • Senior Members
  • 887 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 May 2008 - 05:38 PM

In the cases I have in my database, the children were all adopted at birth (usually within a few days of birth), all know they are adopted, and are all treated as biological children in the database. I agree about them needing to be different events. That's why you have to understand that IF you use my sentences, the child's birth tag will print out of order in the parents narrative and there's no way around this except to have the child's birth tag sort wrong which messes up his narrative. I also record the adoption informaion as I have it. On some cousins, I have simply that they were adopted, on others, I have the court papers from the adoption proceedings (from the adoptive mother).

As I said, they are ones you can use if you want, if you don't, chunk 'em. I won't know. :lol:

Now if I just knew WHY my 3rd great grandfather picked a fight with a local man and was murdered 3 months before my 2nd great grandfather's birth, I could stop speculating on the true parentage of my 2nd great grandfather. People just don't record those kinds of things in the family Bible.

#5 Michael Hannah

Michael Hannah
  • Moderators
  • 2,733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Ranchos, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Genealogy, Computers

Posted 10 May 2008 - 07:00 AM

As I said, they are ones you can use if you want, if you don't, chunk 'em. I won't know. :lol:

And of course I won't know if anyone uses my sentences no matter how passionately I may feel about them. :wink:

Now if I just knew WHY my 3rd great grandfather picked a fight with a local man and was murdered 3 months before my 2nd great grandfather's birth, I could stop speculating on the true parentage of my 2nd great grandfather. People just don't record those kinds of things in the family Bible.

Yes those are the (probably sensitive) pieces of information that one would really:yes: like to know.

In my case, I have my ancestor as the six-year-old Robert Riley recorded in the 1860 census as "Adopted" into the Denbow household, with other data reinforcing Robert's surname as Riley, but absolutely no:crybaby: other information on his birth parents. Oh well, we all have our brick walls to beat our heads against! :wallbash:
Michael
See my book on how I customize TMG My Way.
My website.

#6 GenerationGoneBy

GenerationGoneBy
  • Senior Members
  • 887 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 10 May 2008 - 02:46 PM

Well, he's not a brick wall. In fact, I can take his line back many more generations, I just wonder if I'm climbing the wrong tree. :whistle:

#7 Michael Hannah

Michael Hannah
  • Moderators
  • 2,733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Ranchos, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Genealogy, Computers

Posted 15 August 2011 - 07:54 AM

As this topic has been raised again, I thought I would add my custom Guardian tag type to this thread. I use it when a child is being raised by non-biological adults and/or has legally become someone's Ward, but they have not been formally adopted.
 

Role "Guardian" used for the Principals/adults:
[P1]<became guardian|><|and [P2] become guardians> of [R:ward]<[M2]><[D]><[M3]><[L]>.<[M1]>

Role "ward" used for one or more children:
[W] became a ward under the guardianship of [P1] <and [P2]><[M2]><[D]><[M3]><[L]>.<[M0]><[WM]>

Role "Witness" used as needed:
[W] witnessed [P1]<becoming guardian|><|and [P2] becoming guardians> of [R:ward]<[M2]><[D]><[M3]><[L]>.<[M0]><[WM]>

As is common in my custom tags I use a split memo. [M1] provides general guardianship details for output for the Principals. [M2] is an optional comment that will preceed the date, and [M3] an optional comment that will precede the location. Each child’s sentence also uses the [M2] and [M3] guardianship details and its own optional [WM]. This also allows a single Guardian tag to be used when multiple children are assigned a guardian at the same time, each with their own unique [WM], regardless of whether they share birth parents, and even allows for linking others using the standard Witness role with their separate witness memos to the guardianship event.

Hope this gives you ideas,


Michael
See my book on how I customize TMG My Way.
My website.

#8 ruppy

ruppy
  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 17 July 2014 - 03:10 PM

Michael: I was wondering if you have to insert the new [S] variable and its variations in your sentences for various adoption & guardianship situations? Could you give me an example if I need to insert the new variable/variables? Thanks



#9 Michael Hannah

Michael Hannah
  • Moderators
  • 2,733 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Ranchos, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Genealogy, Computers

Posted 18 July 2014 - 08:06 AM

Michael: I was wondering if you have to insert the new [S] variable and its variations in your sentences for various adoption & guardianship situations? Could you give me an example if I need to insert the new variable/variables? Thanks

 

Well the accurate answer to whether you "have" to insert the new [S] variable is "yes and no". :whistling:

 

Obviously some of these example role sentences use an 'R' variable with that rolename in that same role.  (Although all of mine only use [P] and [W] variables for the Subjects.)  With V9.02 changing the behavior of such variables to always return all people assigned that role, there is the "potential" for a change in output.  However, there is not really a "need" to change to the [S] variable for these specific roles.  By definition of the nature of these roles I would expect that only one person would ever be assigned to that role (e.g. Teresa's FatherRaised role) in a given tag.

 

If you review Terry's excellent article about the role changes here, there are good examples there.  But to be safer, any 'R' variable in a sentence whose rolename is the same as that role should be changed to an 'S' variable if you want to ensure only the Subject is output.  For example the sentence for the role FatherRaised would be safer and clearer as:

[:CR:][:TAB:][S] <and [R:MotherRaised]> raised, [R:Child] born <[D]> < [L]>. <[M]>[:NP:]

I will leave the changes of other such roles as an exercise for the student. ^_^  Hope this gives you ideas,


Michael
See my book on how I customize TMG My Way.
My website.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users