Suggestion: New parent-child relationship type of "Lived Together"

Fredelas from reddit

Since there's a couple relationship type called "Lived Together" when you know two people were a couple and you know when they lived together, but not with certainty when or if they ever married, I'd like to propose a similar relationship type for parents and children.

This would be helpful, because some records indicate a child and one or two adults are part of the same household, and implies that the adult or adults are responsible for the care of the child, but you're not exactly sure if or how they're related. This is very common in older censuses, for example.

A "Lived Together" relationship type would allow users to clearly record when and where a child was first observed to be part of that adult's household, and it would be an obvious signal to other users that additional research might be required.

I think that would be a better solution in many cases than the "Foster" or "Guardianship" relationship types, since those can imply an official or formal relationship between children and adults that there's often no record of.

genthusiast

There is a separate Category for Suggest an Idea - perhaps a moderator can move your suggestion there.

These are the current dialogue options for Parent-Child Relationship:

To me that a child lived with parents indicated in a record is implied and may not need a separate relationship type. I do think as you indicate - if step, foster or guardianship has formal documentation - then those types should be indicated with the attached documentation. But as you are defining it I wonder if 'Adoptive'/'Foster' would not be sufficient? Adoptive/Foster from my perspective doesn't have to imply there are subsequent formal Adoption/Foster documents.

It sounds like you are wanting this Parent-Child Relationship Type only when the parents have the Relationship Event 'Lived Together' - thus indicating illegitimate children? I don't see a need to pass that relation to the child - but as available currently could be attached to the parents. It also sounds like you are wanting the type when research/documentation hasn't indicated the child is some other relationship type to the parent(s). Although you may be correct that older censuses may contain children without explicit parent-child relationships being documented - I don't know that you would find further documentation to indicate the relationship type? Of course, if the subsequent documentation for the child indicates they carried the parent's surname - at least that would be an stronger indication for biological or adoptive parent-child relationship type. It sort of seems like this is what you are trying to indicate - that the 'adoptive' relationship type needs to be differentiated.

I have run across guardianship records from 18-19th century and certainly those can be attached to the children - indicating court appointed guardians (typically subsequent to parent(s)' death(s). I have run across an 'adopted' child - for which I haven't found court adoption records (perhaps more common in Depression, times of war, etc). I can indicate Adoptive in this circumstance.

I am just trying to see how subsequent research for the children couldn't allow the appropriate parent-child relationship type to be selected at that point and avoid the need to flag all children as 'Lived Together' with implied 'parents'. You are right subsequent research needs to be done for all children - and that research may or may not indicate a need to change parent-child relationship type. Record Hints may not be sufficient - but hopefully would find appropriate children records - based on name, location, dates.

ColinCameron

My first thought was that I couldn’t see the need for this. Then I realised I have a perfect case for it’s use in my own family.

A girl lived with a couple from at least the age of four. There seems to have been no pretence that she was their daughter. She was listed on the census as a visitor and had a different surname. But she's still there ten years later. After she marries the older woman refers to the younger one's husband as her son-in-law on several records and he refers to her as his mother-in-law on at least two census returns (she is now widowed and living with them). Their first daughter is named after the older woman with her last name as a middle name. There is clearly some sort of relationship BUT... The older woman never refers to the younger one as her daughter, and any time the younger one has to give details she lists her natural parents. They were both alive into her adulthood, and her mother, well past her marriage. Not only did she know who they were, but they appear to still have been in contact, even after emigration.

I felt this relationship, lasting nearly fifty years, needed to be recorded and I have it on Family Tree as a guardianship because that seemed like the 'least wrong' option, but with notes saying that I really don't know.

'Living Together', had it been available, would have been a better description than Guardianship.