Please offer your thoughts. Do you add adopted children on your Family Tree?
Thanks in advance.

David Syner
Los Angeles, CA
Dsyner@...

Family website
Www.davidsyner.com

Researching
SINER/ZINNER New York, Russia SCHMALTZ / SCHMALZNew York, Detroit Luna,
Grodno, Stoll, Rudman, Carbella ;Russia ( Grodno is now Hrodna, Belarus )
SCHULTZ TENN,, AVES, Russia POUSNER/POSNER, New York,Russia BERLIN
Detroit BELENKY / BIELINKA / BELLINSKY Libau, Latvia , Mohilew NEWMAN
Detroit NEIMAN/NUONAW/ PENICA / PENITZ Krasosielc, Poland, Warshaw
MELTZER, Detroit, Katrinslove or Poltavia or Gatrinslove (sp), Russia, or

MODERATOR NOTE: Research list truncated at 6 lines in accordance with JGDG rules.

Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? My adopted son is my son; my adopted brother is
my brother; my adopted nephew is my nephew.

Roberta Sheps
Colchester, UK

Original Message From: David Syner [mailto:DAVID@...]
Sent: 09 March 2012 04:01

When we adopted our son, we discovered that the only legal difference
between him and any biological son of ours was that this child could, and
our adopted son could not, inherit any hereditary peerage (i. e. count,
duke, etc.) the Queen should choose to bestow upon us.

Nebuch.

Roberta Sheps
Colchester, England

Joseph Hirschfield <JOECYP@...> wrote:

According to Jewish law, an adopted child has almost all rights of
biological children. The only exception I know of is that the Kohen and
Levi attributes do not attach to adopted children of Kohen and Levi adoptive
fathers, unless it is known that the child actually had a Kohen or Levi
biological father.

In a message dated 3/8/2012 11:25:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
DAVID@... writes:

Please offer your thoughts. Do you add adopted children on your Family

Tree?

Even if you don't for whatever reason consider adopted relatives to be real
relatives, consider what will happen later down the line when someone
inherits your data and finds through other means the adopted relatives.
They are going to wonder what happened. Best to keep adopted relatives in
your family tree and indicate somehow that they are adopted.

Marc DVer
Israel

Adopted children are part of a family, and as such they belong to the story
of the family - with the adoption being a highlight of their adoptive
parents' lives. As such, they certainly should be in the family tree.
Most genealogy programs have a way to identify adoptees, as well as foster
kids, step kids of either spouse, etc.

For example, one of my ggrandmothers came to the US, by herself, at age 11
in 1859, after her mother died and her father remarried. She had to come
to somebody, as girls weren't let off the boat unless they were met by a
relative. I spent years trying to find out who she came to, until I wrote
away for her last child's birth record, thinking that none of the other kids
had birth records, so why should this one. Amazingly the child had a birth
record, and his mother's maiden name wasn't her birth name (I had her
parents' names >from her death certificate, and I found her on the Hamburg
Passenger Lists so I knew where she was born and had her birth record).

I then spent several years looking for the foster family, as I thought they
must have been in St. Louis, where my ggrandfather lived at the time, until
I finally went to the cemetery in New York where my ggrandparents were
buried. There they were, the biggest headstone in the family plot was for
her foster mother, Caroline. I have found a lot more about these people
since. Caroline was actually my ggrandfather's aunt, and I am assuming that
her husband was the girl's uncle, as I have not yet found where he came
from, but it was the right part of Prussia to be her family. And her
husband lent my ggrandfather's oldest brother 2 years salary when they first
came to the US.

So, should I have left them out the story of her life? Should I have
dropped the whole thing when I found her birth parents? This is not a
kidney transplant, needing a genetic match, or a race to the oldest
relatives, but the story of the family, and Caroline and her husband were a
big part of it. I can understand why her family sent the girl to New York
(first class, I might add), but they sent her to somebody who was much loved
by the family.

Sally Bruckheimer
Piscataway, NJ

According to Jewish law, an adopted child has almost all rights of
biological children. The only exception I know of is that the Kohen and Levi
attributes do not attach to adopted children of Kohen and Levi adoptive
fathers, unless it is known that the child actually had a Kohen or Levi biological
father.

Joseph Hirschfield
Portage, MI USA
HIRSZFELD, HIRSCHFELD, BUXBAUM, BUCHSBAUM, LINDENBAUM-Skwarzawa, Gliniany,
Yarychiv Nowy, Sielec Bienkow-GALICIA
MINOFF, MINOWITZKI, MINOWICKI-Brest-Litovsk, Wysoko-Litovsk-BELARUS

In a message dated 3/8/2012 11:25:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
DAVID@... writes:

Please offer your thoughts. Do you add adopted children on your Family Tree?

Definitely!!

I recall that there was a thread on forum in 2000, where I opined on this
subject. So, I used the JewishGen Discussion Group Archives (a great
resource) and found my posting. None of my opinions have changed. Here is
the posting:

"As a parent of an adopted child, I have seen the feelings of abandonment
that many adopted children are likely to harbor. Family is more about
emotional attachment and love than it is about blood lines.

"Where is it written that Genealogy is restricted to blood? My 50 year old
cousin was recently told that she was adopted. She asked me if I could help
her find her "birth" family. Now that I know the facts, do I eliminate her
children and grandchildren >from my family tree? Of course not.

"Another recent thread, started by David Frey, discussed why we are "hooked"
on Genealogy. I submit that the process of piecing together our family
histories is one of bringing "life" to our ancestors. It is not blood but
rather this concept of "life" -- who these people are, how they lived, how
they died -- that is the key to my genealogical journey."

Mark Halpern
West Chester, PA

David Syner wrote:
Please offer your thoughts. Do you add adopted children on your Family Tree?
Thanks in advance.

What about the other case .. someone adopted out of the family tree?
Born to a family member, and given out for adoption.

I only have one of those, and it is a little unusual.

Bob (all names fictitious) was married to Carol and had an affair with Alice
who gave birth to John. John was given to Mary and Joseph in an open
adoption arrangement. Alice later married Ted. John contacted me and
asked to be connected to my tree, and wanted all three sets of his parents
included. My genealogy software is very confused.

Maury Kitces

Good Morning JewishGenners

Adopted Children on the Family Tree. I think it is very simple, and this
is my thought on the topic - Yes, absolutely, an adopted child should be
put onto the Family Tree, and certainly not left off. Under no circumstances
whatsoever. That would cause, a terrible emotional upset to the child and
the family, feeling he/she was not good enough, or not the "real child"!!

Children today know that they are adopted, it is not the huge secret it used
to be in older times. And so they rightfully take their place on the Tree.
An adopted child, naturally, does not share the bloodlines of the family,
loved as he/she may be, that is a genealogical and biological fact, they do
not have the Genes of the family who adopted them, but this is taken care of
by using the term "adopted" which the softwear programme "Family Tree Maker"
(and I'm sure other softwear programmes) provides and it should not become
an issue.

But to contradict what I have said now about putting "adpt"next to the
child's name, we don't put "Jewish", "Christian","White", "Black",
"Chinese", "Mixed Race", etc next to someone's name, so maybe it is a slight
insult to the adopted child to have "adpt"next to his/her name?? Or is it?
Perhaps an adopted child could comment on this.

And what about a woman who adopts her sister's child? That child is legally
an "adopted child" but the child shares the bloodlines of the family. If I
was doing this, I would just writes in "Notes" an explanation. I do feel it
is important for generations to come, that the adopted child does have some
record of this on the Tree, only for the sake of DNA in later years. So if
someone is looking for a donor within the family, they will know that this
won't apply in the case of the "adopted child"and the descendants, as they
don't share the same DNA as their family. I am not an expert, so I stand
correct

All the best >from South Africa,

Anne Lapedus BREST (ex Dublin, Ireland) Sandton, South Africa

RESEARCHING - LAPEDUS and KAHN Vieksniai, Lithuania. MARCUS and FELDMAN
Ackmene, Lithuania. KLOPMAN/KLAPMAN,Silmalas, Latvi). SHILLMAN, BENSON,
SEIDER Krustpils/Kreutzberg)Latvia. MIRRELSON Kurshan, Courland, Latvia.
BREST Bauska, Latvia. ORKIN Zagere Lithuania. CHAVKIN and CHEIN Zagare,
Lithuania. GILINSKY Daugavpils/Dvinsk, Latvia. GAYER/GAER near Chelm,
Poland. NAS(H)ATIR (Lithuania)

I favor noting an adoption --- if I am even aware of it --- in a private
comment. It isn't really relevant to anything or anyone in any way that I
can think of. Even if you are looking for a genetic match it is pretty
unlikely to be the only dispositive factor.

Micah Salb

Someone wondered about the view of adoptees on inclusion in family trees.
There are people who have been adopted who are so bitter about the
experience, they've formed organizations to try to ban adoption altogether.
[It's not clear what they think should happen to children whose parents
cannot take care of them]. On the other hand, I personally know adoptees
who view being adopted about the same as most people view the color of
their hair or eyes - it IS. You don't agonize over it.

As an adoptive parent, I know that mainstream adoption agencies urge you
to talk to your child about adoption right >from the start. You are warned
that if you try to keep it a secret, or if you decide to wait until a child
is some arbitrary age before you mention it, you are setting yourself up
for a world of problems.

My husband & I started reading Thomas Mallory's "La Morte d'Arthur"
recently. In one chapter, Arthur learns as a young adult that Sir Ector &
his wife are his foster, not biological, parents. He's devastated. Mallory
died in 1471. So people have been aware of the pitfalls of keeping this
secret for over 500 years. It doesn't give you much hope that it still
comes up as an issue for some adoptive parents.

As family historians, we try to record the facts. We list our sources. We
point out where we have less than proof. So we have to record adoptions
and include the family members, as most of the responses have already been saying.

Irene Newhouse
Kihei HI

List him. Someone, some day, will be confused - and if you're going to
the trouble to make a tree, you can help them unravel the mystery. I
don't know about all genealogy software, but I've figured out a way to
fox Family Tree Maker and ancestry.com WILL sync to it without choking,
though if you look at the Family View the child attaches only to the
primary family.

But do it. The world needs to know the truths.

Martha Schecter Forsyth
Newton, MA

Maury Kitces <family@...> wrote:

To reply to Anne Lapedus and to add my two cents to this discussion -

I am in favour of very simply putting "adopted" in the 'Notes' section, beside
the adopted child's name. This eliminates all sorts of issues that might result
for the adopted child and/or the family. (I agree with Anne's comments, which
appear below)

The aim of formulating a family tree is to bring families together, to
explore our roots, but not to hurt or alienate anyone. So, in my view,
diplomacy is the rule.

Merle Kastner
Montreal, Canada
merlek@...
Researching: KASTNER, OSTFELD (Bukovina), NATHANSON,
MENDELSSOHN (Piatra Neamt & Negulesti, Romania),
KUSSNER/KUSHNIR (Bendery, Moldova), MILLER/SHUSHINSKI
(Lida, Belarus, Vilna & Eishishok, Lithuania), GARBARSKI &
DENENBERG/DYNABURSKI (Sejny, Suwalki gubernia, Poland)

snip>

But to contradict what I have said now about putting "adpt"next to the
child's name, we don't put "Jewish", "Christian","White", "Black",
"Chinese", "Mixed Race", etc next to someone's name, so maybe it is a slight
insult to the adopted child to have "adpt"next to his/her name?? Or is it?
Perhaps an adopted child could comment on this.

<snip>
Anne Lapedus BREST (ex Dublin, Ireland) Sandton, South Africa
digitalphoto@...

Your new situation, about adopting a sister's child is a simple one with
most genealogy programs (since we are mentioning program names now, I use
Legacy, so the specifics deal with that program). My ggrandmother was
raised in New York by a foster family, so that is my example.

You would start by entering the data as usual. If you enter her with her
biological family, as I did, you just enter her like anybody else. I would
recommend against adding 'adptd' or any other marker with somebody's name,
as that will confuse people - who is the adopted parent and who biologic.

In Legacy, one of the ways to add a second set of parents is to click the
'Parents' icon for the person, then click on the 'Add New Parents' button,
which produces an additional link to 'unknown' parents who you can then
enter, or you can just link >from the highlighted person's. The nice thing
about the 'Add New Parents' icon is that you have, at the bottom of the
screen 'Relationship to Father' and 'Relationship to Mother' which are
drop-down lists that you can use to mark the relationship 'Biological',
'Adopted', 'Foster', and several more, or add a new kind of relationship -
for each parent separately. You can also mark these statuses as private if
you wish.

You also have a 'Child Status' drop down list here, so you can mark the
child as a twin, adopted by the couple, or whatever.

For your particular question, adopting a sister's child would work the same
way as any other; one set of parents biological, the other adoptive. In my
ggrandmother's case, I don't know her relationship to her foster parents,
but she was sent >from Europe to them, and I guess that her foster father was
her uncle, so I make notes about that.

For a current adoption, you want to be sensitive to the child's feelings,
so in most cases, I wouldn't make any obvious difference, like marking the
name which would print out anywhere the name prints. By using the built in
statuses, you can make the relationships private, where it will print out in
reports, or not, while preserving the information, and continuing to research
both lines if you wish.

Sally Bruckheimer
Piscataway, NJ

This is just for My Family Tree

I have put in and taken out a few of the adopted child who had the best
parents and I guess its because of their original dna kind of disowned the
family.

I also left out a few relatives that I cant stand.
Everyone else is either related by blood or parents of the spouse, I am not
into what is politically correct. I take what I am doing very seriously
and am very proud of my tree.

Evelyn Filippi
New York

I will use an example concerning Adopted children: Namely myself. My parents
who have raised me as a infant are my Parents.. My biological mother is who
she is, a biological mother and not my parent..I use Ancestry Tree Maker
2011 and one can list both Parents and biological parent/parents.
Procedure is hidden slightly..(I will have to relook at the procedure and
you can ask privately about it)..

Herbert Adelsberg
Berts_Family_1947@...

Scott,

I replied privately to the original question. I also create two family
trees/reports: one for my genealogy/genetic family, and one for a family
history family tree.

The first follows the bloodline only, whether ancestor chart or descendant
chart. This "tree" documents my genealogical research and serves as a guide
to future research.

The latter is a descendant chart I created at my family's request, and is
used to show my extended family how they are connected today. My
genealogical software has the ability to designate (and change) primary
parents. When I create a Family History tree showing children with their
non-biological parent(s), I use a name variant for the child, which is "John
Jones (adopted son of Robert and Sue Jones)", or "John Jones (stepson of
Robert Jones)". This way, everyone is included, but if a family member
decides to "share" the tree, it is clear to the recipient that some
relationships are not biological ones.

Cheryl Freeman
Dallas, TX

As a Mac user I looked around for genealogical software that struck a
happy medium between the basics and a truckload of bells and whistles.
I found a a program called iFamily for Leopard. It handles adopted and
step children with ease, as well as multiple marriages with children.

I have no interest in the program or company other than being a satisfied user.

If anyone has questions please contact me privately,

Cal Weil
Fortuna, CA

Adopted and step children are loved just as much as natural born children,
usually. I include them all with a private side note. Everyone does not
need to know the relationship.

If a family member asks me not to list a 2nd marriage, previous marriage or
children, I respect their wishes. My genealogy work is not for the legal
world it is for family members. What I do is put the information in my
notes section that is only for me to see. The family is happy that so and
so is not included yet I still have the information if ever needed.

Trudy Barch,
Chicagoland

Is it correct to put adopteds on a family tree?

I've been avidly following this discussion, through both "emotional" and
"intellectual" attempts at arriving at some sort of standard.

Seems to me (and, of course, this is only my opinion) there is a simple answer.
There is no single "standard."

If we are conducting genealogical research, the research necessarily, and
by definition, must only be concerned with genetic relationships. In that
instance, adopteds do not belong on a genealogical family tree. Genealogy
cannot be concerned about emotional bonds, regardless of the "feelings"
toward adopteds, family members you personally can't stand, illegitimate
children, etc. Genealogical research is devoted to the study of bloodlines.

But there have been numerous responses >from adopteds and adoptive parents
who seem almost offended at the thought of omitting these non-blood
relationships >from a tree. They need not be offended, however, since many here
who create family trees are not,actually conducting "genealogical" research,
in the strictest sense. They are engaged in something that might best be
termed "family/relational research," as families are composed of
relationships, in addition to bloodlines.

That's fine when all we seek is to understand family relationships - in
this type of family tree, even unmarried "couples" with no issue can be
properly included. So adopteds, their biological parents, gay unions, long term
companions, etc. can all be said to properly belong on the tree.

However, these types of trees are of lessened value to researchers seeking
to establish bloodlines, for whatever reason - be it to trace medical
conditions, conduct genetic analysis, confirm descent of royalty, etc. And I
think we need take care when sharing research with others researching our
families, so they can easily delineate actual blood relationships >from those
that we are "fond" of but share no common genetics.

I personally reconcile this by creating two trees, one "Genalogical Tree"
and one "Relationship Tree." It's relatively simple to do - just an edit
here or there. That way those I feel close to and wouldn't dream of leaving
out, such as adopted family members, step children and yes, even non-blood
spouses in second (or third) marriages with no issue can be included.

But when I need pure genealogical data, I would never turn to my
"relationship" tree. My "genealogical" tree is dedicated to preserving such
invaluable, dependable bloodline data.

As Evelyn recently wrote, "I take what I am doing very seriously and am
very proud of my tree" (or in my case, "trees").

Hoping I haven't offended anyone in what seems to be a somewhat emotionally
charged subject,

Scott Rabinowitz