Home› Welcome to the FamilySearch Community!› Suggest an Idea

More parent types needed, or at least "other" as a parent type

WMT
WMT ✭
June 19, 2022 in Suggest an Idea

The will of one man names "my reputed son John". Although rare, it would be good to capture that relationship (potentially biological). Unfortunately, "reputed father" doesn't fit into the currently offered types (<none>, Adoptive, Biological, Foster, Guardianship, Step). (<none> must mean "legal" parent, with Biological used for the case of a biological parent that isn't a "legal" parent.)

In the 2000s, society seems to be generating new relationships such as "my mother's (female) partner" and more.

If nothing else, I would suggest adding "other" to the possible parent relationship types. The explanation box can be used to capture the detail.

Tagged:
  • New
2
2
Up Down
2 votes

New · Last Updated June 19, 2022

Comments

  • Paul W
    Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
    June 19, 2022 edited June 19, 2022

    Just on the point of the meaning of "reputed son", I have found (especially in older records) this does relate to speculation, but where the father of an illegitimate child has actually been established. An article at https://www.genealogy.com/articles/research/52_donna.html indicates this is not just my personal experience, the key sentence being:

    "If the child is said to be the "reputed" son of John Smith, it means the father either admits it or it has been proven."

    In this case, I would be just as inclined to show the father as "Biological" as one would with a married couple. Just because official documents show a person to be a father of a child, how does one ever know for sure? In cases where a baptism is recorded where the named parents' previous child was born ten or more years previously and the "mother" is, by then, in her 50s, it usually appears highly likely the child is that of a young, unmarried daughter. However, without further evidence, I think most researchers would feel it correct to record the likely grandparents as biological parents.

    In summary, I am not against your idea in general terms, but feel it is probably unnecessary with regards to "reputed" fathers - as there is probably just as much chance as them being the biological father than when a child's parents are shown as a married couple - either for the reason shown above, or that the wife might have had an clandestine affair.

    1
Clear
No Groups Found

Categories

  • 28.4K All Categories
  • 22.8K FamilySearch Help
  • 111 Get Involved
  • 2.6K General Questions
  • 423 FamilySearch Center
  • 431 FamilySearch Account
  • 4.1K Family Tree
  • 3.2K Search
  • 4.5K Indexing
  • 591 Memories
  • 6.1K Temple
  • 308 Other Languages
  • 34 Community News
  • 6.4K Suggest an Idea
  • Groups