Are adopted children recorded in a geneology tree & if so are there entries noted as being adopted?

Question

Are adopted children recorded in a geneology tree & if so are there entries noted as being adopted?

Answer 1

Yes. A family tree accounts for both the history of the family and the genetic genealogy, so the fact that the child was part of the family is important, but the fact that the child has different biological parents is also important. How that child is marked as adopted varies by how the tree is prepared. If it's handwritten, there might be a symbol or simply the word 'adopted' written in. A computer program will generally have a way to identify parents as natural, adoptive, step, possibly even foster or surrogate, etc.

Answer 2

it all depends on the family. There is a certain symbol that is placed next to the child's name to indicate adopted, but some families don't segragate

Answer 3

Adopted children should always be recorded, and a note made about the adoption, with as much information as possible. Future generations may not know of the adoptions and if they get into genetic genealogy it will help to sort out anomalies

Answer 4

I've got an adopted individual in my tree, and I've added him because he took the adopted family's name, and his children have now also got the name. They may not be blood relatives, but they still take the family name with them, so perhaps it's worth noting despite this. I would also mention it in the notes area for that individual, to save future generations having problems when searching for their birth record.

Remember that in the last century, many adoptions were done in the same family, so perhaps an aunt would look after the baby, or a sibling would. Therefore the child is possibly still of the same blood line.

I don't know about looking up the adoption records though, as the person in my tree was born in the 1970s, so it's not been a problem for us. But I've heard that up until c1927 adoptions weren't very well documented, and often contained misleading information, right down to the biological and adoptive parents' names.

Answer 5

Yes

Answer 6

That question has aroused more arguments than any other in the 10 years I have been reading Genealogy bulletin boards (The real ones, not just Y!A) and subscribing to genealogy mailing lists.

Arguments for, as the twig is bent so grows the tree, and the couple who adopt a child will bend him or her more than the biological parents.

Arguments against, genealogy is about genes. To take an extreme example, if a child was lost in the wilderness and raised by wolves, would you put "Greyfang" in as his father?

It is your call.  There are strong, cogent arguments for both sides. I just gave you two samples. If you'd like to spend a week reading arguments pro and con, I can give you links to mailing list archives and large bulletin boards. Be aware of the controversy, if you ever swap GEDCOMs or publish your work.

The newer versions of the good genealogy programs allow you to enter multiple parents for a single individual, the biological ones and the adoptive ones, and have "Adopted" as a fact you can add to individuals.

In the old days, if you didn't want to add a child as a biological child, you had "John LNU" (Last Name Unknown) as an individual with "Unknown" for mother and father and a note on a married couple saying they had room in their home and heart for another child, John.

Answer 7

yes, adopted children should be in a geneology tree and it should probably say they were adopted

Answer 8

My niece has 2 adopted children and as far as we are concerned our family history is their family history.  I would be shocked and offended if  anybody would think otherwise.