How do we stop someone from adding a man as husband to my ancestor. They were never married.
There is a man, GQT7-R2R, who fathered a child with my ancestor, and this has been proved genetically by his descendants.
However, he was married to another woman at the time of conception. He never married my ancestor. He never lived with her. There is a church record attached to him and her that states he is the father of her child by fornication. She was young, never married, lived with her parents, and died when her child was 4 years old. Her brother took over as father figure to the child. The child was raised by and is sealed to his maternal grandparents. She is LZVK-3Z6. We assume the child's birth father was a rapist.
This man should not be added to my ancestor as her husband. I have detached him many times but his descendants by way of his legal wife keep adding him as my ancestor's husband.
Can this situation be permanently remedied???
Best Answer
-
Jane
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
Your Questions:
How do we stop someone from adding a man as husband to my ancestor? (They were never married.)
Can this situation be permanently remedied?
Short Answers: You CANNOT; and, NO.
Please let me try to explain ...
Although, the word/term "Spouse" by (simplified) definition means ... a husband or wife [ie. who are "Married"], considered in relation to their partner.
In "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', generally ...
And, particularly, in the "Family Members" Section ...
The word/term "Spouse" can have a MUCH More 'Broader' meaning ...
Such as; but, not limited to:
▬ Married; and/or,
▬ Common Law Relationship; and/or,
▬ Lived Together; and/or,
And, most importantly ...
▬ (Simply) The Parents of a Child (but, Unwed; and/or, NOT in a Relationship, of any kind)
In regards to the Patents of a Child, who were NOT "Married"; and/or, were NOT in a Relationship ...
[ Other than, the 'act', of producing, a Child ... ]
As proffered by 'dontiknowyou' ...
There are two (x2) 'schools of thought' that, can; and, are, followed, by Users/Patrons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
ONE School
Include the Parents; as, a "Couple", WITHOUT, an 'Event'; and, noting that the Parents/Couple were NOT "Married"; and/or, were NOT in a Relationship, WITH a Child.
ANOTHER School
NOT to have the Parents; as, a Couple; BEING, as separate and distinct, from each other, NOT associated together, as a Couple; BUT, have a Child associated with each separately, in one case with a Mother ONLY; and, in the other case with a Father ONLY.
Now ...
That Said ...
There are RESAONS why BOTH schools of thought exist.
And, there are 'PROS and CONS' for BOTH schools of thought.
Technically ...
There is NO 'right' or 'wrong' way ...
Each User/Patron will have their OWN school of thought that they will follow ...
Always remember that another Users/Patrons, CAN; and, often, WILL, come along and "Change" what a User/Patron has already done ...
[ As you are experiencing ... ]
Hence ...
As a User/Patron ...
One CANNOT stop another User/Patron coming along, later; and, making the Parents of a Child; as, a "Couple" (eg, even as "Unmarried"), in the "Family Members" Section of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
As, such is against the "Open-Edit' nature of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Therefore ...
In your case ...
I would humbly suggest, that whatever you do, whichever school of thought, that you prefer ...
You NEED to also ADD copious "Details" EVERYWHERE you can ...
ie.
▬ Individuals
▬ ▬ Life Sketch
▬ ▬ Other Information" (eg. Custom Fact)
▬ ▬ Collaborate
▬ ▬ ▬ Notes
▬ ▬ ▬ Discussions
▬ Couple Relationship
▬ ▬ Note
▬ Parent-Child Relationship
▬ ▬ Note
against, the individuals/person concerned; being, ...
Father: Joseph LIGHTBODY ... [ GQT7-R2R ]
Mother: Elizabeth Ellioty MURRAY ... [ LZVK-3Z6 ]
Child: John MUARRY ... [ KWVS-6SY ]
in regards to the situation/circumstance.
Furthermore ...
As proffered by 'genthusiast'; and, was originally the case...
For the Child; being, John MUARRY ... [ KWVS-6SY ], there can be MULTIPLE "Sets" of Parents
▬ Biological; and,
▬ Adopted; and,
▬ Guardianship ... [ ie. Maternal "Grandparents", to whom "Sealed" in 1949; but, have been "Dissociated" ].
'Yes', as suggested by 'genthusiast', you will definitely NEED to significantly "Collaborate" with ALL Other Users/Patrons ("Living" Descendants) who have 'Contributed' so far; so that, you work out an amicable situation/circumstance.
Otherwise, the Other Users/Patrons ("Living" Descendants) who have 'Contributed' so far, will just keep "Changing" things.
Unfortunately, that is the consequence of the "Open-Edit' nature of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Of course ... all easier said, than done ...
Brett
ps: Similar to 'genthusiast' ...
...... BOTH, 'Elizabeth'; and, 'John', are my DIRECT "Cousins" ...
pps: SO ... IF, you need a hand; THEN, do not hesitate to ask ...
1
Answers
-
I am sorry you are having a conflict over this common situation. The other contributors are trying to do what is usual.
Another arrangement some people use is to attach both parents to the child, mother without father, and father without mother. But this arrangement leaves a gap in trees and tends to be "tidied up" by bypasses who link the mother and father per usual.
Being linked with another person as father of a child does not make the father a husband. It is unfortunate that the user interface on the web uses the word "Spouse" as a catch-all for any type of other parent. There is no husband unless the marriage field is used.
Does this help?
0 -
I have learned that thee is a third option. Open a "Case" with Family Search and have Elizabeth's record put off limits to changes. That will fit within the FS parameters of never sealing a rapist to his victim.
0 -
Jane
'Yes' ...
"Do Not Seal" (ie. DNS), was a frequently used, ACTION in the OLD 'Days'; but, are rarely, used THESE 'Days'.
[ One can 'see' such, on the "Family Group Records", submitted for "Temple" Work, way back when ... ]
[ They sometimes appears, as "Images", associated with posts, in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum ... ]
Theses days ...
Requests for "DNS", have to be submitted, the First Presidency of the Church, for Approval/Authorisation.
Such is a very formal process.
Good Luck.
Brett
1
