I am making family tree. My husband & his sister adopted. Which name should I use for them on tree?

Question

My husband and his sister were adopted as adults by their stepfather. Not sure if their birth fathers name should be used or their adopted fathers name be used.

Answer 1

Ask them. Whatever they go by.

Answer 2

their adoptive father's name.

Answer 3

In genealogy, it should be the father, not stepfather or other. You can include notes to indicate what happened.

Simply put, genealogy is about one's ancestors, not adoptees, aunts, uncles, cousins, but parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.

Answer 4

Use the stepfather's one, because by adoption, he becomes legally and socially his "father/son".

Answer 5

Since they were adults and it was a secondary marriage by their mother the name should be recorded as birth name/ present last name.

Answer 6

For the sake of history, I would use both with a clear explanation. If its out that they were adopted then it shouldn't be hid as to where their biological roots  came from. Who knows with your research you might find them already on your tree. I hope this make sense to you. I feel that its very important. Happy searching.

Answer 7

Tricky question.  You should use their adoptive father's name, but if you do their lineage, you need to stick with their genetic line.  Most family tree programs will let you insert notes on individuals.  The one I had to deal with is my niece is the daughter of my brother so had to be listed under him, but has been raised by my sister and so had to be listed under her, too.  Fortunately, the program I have will let me do that and keeps it clear that she's the same person.

Answer 8

Agreeing with Dee, and Loryn.  If the birth name is not in there somewhere, lines will be lost.  For the sake of someone else tracking back (say in 50 or so years) they will hit a dead end...

and/or incorrect lineage.

Answer 9

That is the most divisive question in our little hobby. People have flamed each other over their opinions. I have been reading Genealogy boards since 1998, and the question of adopted children is always controversial.

If you want to be a strict, conservative genealogist (emphasis on GENE), you put them down as the name they were born with. (In your case, it sounds like this next step isn't necessary, but if they were found in a basket on the front steps of the church and adopted shortly afterwards, you'd put "Unknown", for their father and mother.) Add an AKA fact, an adopted fact, and put a note on the Stepfather that he adopted the two children.

Among the many arguments for putting the biological parents and the original name, are

1) Our little hobby is GENEalogy.

2) If they were lost in the wilderness and raised by wolves, you would not put "Greyfang" down as the father. (I'm the only one who makes that argument; it is still cogent, though.)

Among the many arguments for putting the adoptive parents and the adopted name, at least for children adopted before the age of 10, are

1) As the twig is bent so grows the tree; the APs are more responsible for how straight or crooked the kids turn out than the bio parents;

2) They will use the adopted name most of their life, if they are men or, if women, for most of their maiden life.

I favor the biological parents & name route, but I don't foam at the mouth when other people use the adoptive name. Whichever you choose, make sure you put in plenty of notes on both the children, step parents and bio parents, so that people who use your research can reverse it if they are in the other camp.

Answer 10

def use their adoptive fathers family name.

their name prior to this shouldnt even count.

they didnt raise them, then didnt make his family.

their adoptive parents did, so i believe it should

go to them, that would only be showing respect.