DNA parent relationship type
I've just helped a person identify her biological father via DNA. I didn't find any satisfactory way to show that she was 52 before she knew who her father was.
I suggest a new relationship type for the parents that reflects this kind of relationship. I might suggest "DNA" or maybe "Brief" or something similar. You decide. But something is desperately NEEDED.
In addition, please add a new marriage event that says "Never married" or something similar.
My temporary solution is that the person has a mother with no father. Then I added the father as a new parent with no spouse. It is awkward, but least confusing.
It also means that the person has 2 half pedigree charts. I'd prefer one
This is a VERY common situation (this is not the first time I've dealt with this) and should be handled up-front and not ignored and obscured! This is, after all, the 21st century.
Thank you.
Ken Chapman
Comments
-
Yes, as a lineage researcher I also have encountered it.
0 -
There has been a recent detailed discussion on this topic. You'll probably be interested in the whole conversation, but here is my comment where I suggest an approach for handling this situation: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/524989/#Comment_524989
0 -
Alan E. Brown I don't think it' the same situation at all. Completely different. This is about a child RAISED BY A COUPLE WHO WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME, NAMED ON THE BIRTH CERT AND BOTH ADULTS ASSUMED THEY WERE THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS.
Then 40 or 50 years later, SURPRISE! A secret that had been suppressed has been revealed, at least partially.
In this case I would keep the child associated with the two people who raised him/her. I would change the father's relationship to step and mother's to biological. Then I would add an additional male parent, and name that man if you know it and **if** it is information that can be made public, otherwise give that man's name as Confidential, even if he is now deceased.
0 -
@Gail Swihart Watson I was talking about the original post. I knew nothing about the situation you were talking about when I made my post. The original post has several similarities to the thread I referenced; in particular, there is a set of biological parents who had no couple relationship, and there is the suggestion that one might create two half-sets of parents, with the resulting problems of 2 half pedigree charts. Those elements were specifically discussed in the thread I referenced and in my comment that I linked to. So although no two situations are exactly the same, there are certainly multiple similarities. I think @Kenneth Chapman might find some helpful details in that discussion, so I provided a link.
1 -
Alan E. Brown and Kenneth Chapman what is different between the situation posed in this thread and the other thread that Alan referred to is legal proof. Kenneth, you have helped someone understand DNA tools enough to find a biological father. I am presuming you do not have any legal document showing this relationship, but perhaps the family has accepted the reality and now sees this woman as a sister, cousin, etc. This is a situation where, even if the father is deceased, you should not name his name unless you are sure it will be welcomed as truth and not hearsay. In the situation of the other thread Alan is referring to, all relationships have legal proof. In my adopted relative's case, that is certainly true. The original birth certificate and the reissued birth certificate post adoption support all facts.
When a DNA test results in the new information regarding parentage, the new name should NOT automatically be thrown into the public domain as fact. I have another woman I know whose mother has a false name for father on her birth cert. The correct father is known but the family is not welcoming at all because, in fact, the situation was very likely non-consensual.
So I conclude that where DNA has thrown a monkey wrench into the gears of family history, much caution is advised and the solution for recording it should NOT be lumped in with the situation of adopted children conceived in short term relationships.
1 -
To get back to the main point of the post,
"I suggest a new relationship type for the parents that reflects this kind of relationship. I might suggest "DNA" or maybe "Brief" or something similar. You decide. But something is desperately NEEDED."
I would not think any change in the meaning of biological is needed. The definition of "Biological" requires there be a DNA match.
As has come up previously, it could be helpful to have a parent-child relationship of "Legal."
As far as where to record that someone was not aware of who her biological father was until age 52, that would fit just fine in the relationship notes:
4 -
You can already do this. Relationships can be marked as any of the following:
Adoptive
Biological
Foster
Guardianship
Step
To mark a relationship, just select the pencil icon next to where the child is listed under the parents. (Not the one next to the parents)
There should be a button under each of the parents that says "Add relationship type."
0