Adoption and family trees?

Question

Hi there,

if you adopt someone into your family, are they listed on your family tree? Thanks

Answer 1

They should be, since the adoption process made them legally yours.

Answer 2

no, it is just the bloodline of the male heirs and their spouses

Answer 3

I'm on the family tree but clearly marked A D O P T E D

Nice!

Answer 4

Yes because they are legally your child and YOUR family!  Legally they are considered yours, so of course you would put them on there!

Answer 5

Of course they are! Each new addition to the family is listed.

Answer 6

this is entirely personnel - but in my opinion they should be listed as they are family

Answer 7

Of course they can this is 2007 almost 2008. People need to stop living in the past . It use to be that  a woman always took her husband surname not the case anymore.  Anyone can created a family tree and any family members can be put on that tree, biological, adopted or even honorary. I’m adopted and I’m on my family’s tree. Heck I'm even on the tree a lady was making for my mother's first husband’s [died of cancer] side of the family. I’m not even related to this people in any form expect my elder brothers and their familys.  However their father’s side of the family has always treated me like family.

I had to make a family tree in high school and I had no problem because this is my family. My mother even said just put your name and 2 lines drawn to unknown. But I didn’t want to do that I wanted to make my family tree, the family that raised me.  I don’t have two families I only have one family.[No disrespect to adoptees who feel they have two families]  My tree I made was not fiction its my real tree because its my real family. Had i included birthparents in any fashion other then heritage that would have been the fake tree, as they are not my family and never have been. I enjoyed learning things about the members in my family grandparents, great grandparents. Sure they wernet blood related to me but they were still my family.  I did put on the date I was official adopted, as well as heritage of birthparents (African and European)

For people who wouldn’t put an adopted family member on their tree shame on them.

Answer 8

It depends on how strict the conventions used by the person making out the family tree.

Traditionally - only bloodline relatives are officially on family trees.

Adoptees have TWO families - but they just always end up in between - in no-mans land. (mostly because everyone else is saying where they belong - and not allow them to belong to both - where they DO belong)

Adoptees are never allowed their say.

Sad really.

Answer 9

Hi Dave,

There are two ways to look at this question.

From the adoptive parents point of view - Adoptive parents have paid all the fees, gone through all the background checks, they probably loved & wanted children.  They have papers stating they are responsible for these children as if they had given birth to them.  Very few adopters would have any problem with including adoptees on their family tree, since in their minds, the adoptees are like their own children to them.  In most cases, adoptees are their only children.

Now, Let's look at it from the adoptee's point of view - Your teacher has assigned a project to create your family tree.  You know that you do not know yours.  In fact, you are not legally permitted to know your family tree until you are an adult, and in most cases, not even then.  Most adoptions are not open adoptions where that info is readily available.  You might ask for help from your adoptive parents because they know their own trees & you can borrow their information so you have something to fill in on your tree.  The entire time you are working on the project, it's like a game of pretend.  Adoptive parents fill it out saying things like "your great-great grandparent's names were X or Y, & they came here from Germany or Ireland or wherever the adoptive parent's ancestors came from.  That may be interesting information, but does writing their names on a tree really make the adoptee German or Irish?  The adoptee might be Chinese or Korean.  They know those are not really their relatives.  It seems to be an approved form of deceiving and confusing adoptees.  It also puts even young adoptees in the position of not wanting to hurt their adoptive parents' feelings by pointing that out to them.  These are the types of things that adoptees are always going to remember.

The point is, making a family tree to adopted children is a form of legalized fiction.  Yes, on paper it might be legal.  In reality, everyone knows it's not their heritage.  Some teachers have been known to make accomodations in the cases of adopted children with alternate assignments or even combining both family trees if known.  It's really an unfair assignment for any adopted child to have to complete because it only serves to emphasize how different they are from others, and it can unintentionally cause hurt to the adoptee.  I think family trees are one assignment that schools could really do without.

julie j

Answer 10

yes

Answer 11

Of course!  That person is now part of your family, legally and morally.  You have just as much responsibility for that person as you would your own child.  Assume for a moment that you have two children and one was adopted and you gave birth the the other.  Both children wanted a candy bar at the store, would you buy one for the naturally born child and not the adopted?  Of course not!  If both children wanted to attend college, would it be OK to send your natural child and say no to the adopted one (assuming both have the grades, desire and the money is available)?  Even the Bible talks about a brother raising his nephew in the event that the father dies.

Answer 12

yes!!!

family tree doesnt = blood.  family tree = FAMILY

Answer 13

Hi Dave,

I've been doing genealogy on-line for 8 years, and off-line for 30 before that. Your question comes up constantly. It arouses more emotions faster than any other Q in our little world.

Argument for, those parents are usually the only one the child has known, and they are more responsible for what that child becomes than the biological parents.

Argument against, genealogy is that - genes. Birdwatchers don't record squirrels or frogs in their life lists, stamp collectors don't put coins in their albums. Do a family history, if you like, a complete biography, a compelling story of life, love and triumph, but don't call it genealogy. To take it to absurd lengths, if you had Romulus and Remus, the two founders of Rome who were raised by a she-wolf, would you put "Fang" in as their mother?

The genealogy world is roughly evenly divided on this one. Whatever you do, put notes on both the child and the parents, so that someone reading your work 10, 20 or 50 years from now will know the relation was through law and affection, not blood.

Answer 14

why certainly but then agan they are not full blooded but it helps to see them there also. take care.