Step children have more than one "mom" and warnings are currently inaccurate, tweak needed.
Mansel Alcock Appleton Sr KNSV-3DM, has a RED warning exclamation warning that is
1. Inaccurate and 2. currently impossible to fix without destroying/deleting correct relationships.
My idea is that there are at least 2 ways to solve is to tweak the software.
1. so that the RED age warning only applies to Mother... and if Step Mother is the relationship to the child, the RED warning does not apply or
- give the RED warning an option to DISMISS so that a person like me can Dismiss and get rid of the red warning and give the computer the reason...."This age of the mother is too young (under 12) to have children" is inaccurate because this is his STEP mother that his dad remarried and yes, she is too young to have had him as a kid, but NOT too young to have him as a step child....or something like that.
Why is this important....This guy, Mansel has got a bunch of younger brothers and sisters and as they are still in the household, the mom has died, the step mom starts showing up in Census as MOM as the kids get put with wrong BIOlogical mom then I come clean it up and fix the relationship back to STEP, then step mom died and 3rd wife is showing up. So ALL 3 wives have raised the bunch of kids and they are on Censuses and marriage records as MOM when only 1 is the MOM and 2 are the STEP MOM and ALL of the kids currently have these big red warnings that the MOM is too young to be the mom. It would be great to be able to dismiss the red warning and give the explanation for all future ancestors who view the record to see the accurate relationship
Maybe the errors should be suppressible, but I'd question how much of a parental role there actually is, for example, when the relationship only exists for four years while the children are already in their 30s and 40s, or the relationship starts when the "step-mother" is 58 and the "step-child" is 57. It kind of trivializes the relationship if you just blanket every instance where a parent remarries with the label. With rare exceptions, it should really be limited to situations where there the new spouse lives with and helps raise a child still in their formative and dependent years. I mean, the youngest child in that household was already 19 when his father remarried.
Also, it looks like most of most of the profiles there aren't following the FamilySearch guidelines for name fields and how to handle name changes, notably from that last guideline: "Important: Please do not enter the word "or" in the name field or use parentheses or quote marks."
Nearly everybody has the name Appleton appended, but it looks like only a few of the siblings actually made that change. Most only have sources showing Alcock and have children who continued to use that name. Some switched to other names. I wouldn't included the name for somebody unless there's a contemporary primary source showing that that specific person actually used it.2