Is there any way of dismissing Red Data Problems? If not can we get this added.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: My Great Great Grandmother Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas had two illegitimate children after the death of her husband, Abijah Montgomery Thomas. Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas never lived with the biological fathers of these illegitimate children and the children took for their last name, Thomas. The illegitimate children were raised along with the other children in the family of Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas.

Later these illegitimate children were sealed in the Temple to Abijah Montgomery Thomas and Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas.
I can not dismiss the Red Data Problems on these children


I am showing the Biological fathers, along with Abijah Montgomery Thomas and Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas as parents of these children.

I just spent time restoring these children to the household of Abijah Montgomery Thomas and Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas after someone deleted or removed them from this family.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: This kind of situation exists but with some problems that likely would drive me up a tree...

The biggest problem is that the illegitimate children adopted the name of their siblings' father as their own. As far as I know, there is no relationship term that covers this situation. I'm not sure there should be, either.

This is made worse by the fact that their biological fathers wanted nothing to do with the family, except in the form of one night stands.

(I hate to ask this, but was permission received to seal the two children to the deceased husband? -- If so, all is well.)

The other question that I have is in the 1880 census. where the first of the two children was alive. Was any other adult, besides the mother, part of that household -- for instance, her parents, or her husband's parents? If so, there would have been a guardianship established with respect to the two kids, and if his parents were helping raise the children, then the route of sealing them to their grandparents would be proper (I ran into this with respect to an unknown father of a child, wherein the grandparents (parents of the mother) raised the children. Although there was no formal guardianship established through a court order) the circumstances established the relationship.

Definitely a sticky situation and one we're likely to see more of as time goes on.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I guess what I'm saying is that there has to be a way to handle this that is in compliance with Church policy. The only way I'm aware that such a situation can take place is by permission of the first presidency (I see this in one of my own family lines).

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Yes, Tom, permission was given to my Great Uncle Harry Delbert Thomas. Yes, she talks of her father coming to visit, so I am assuming her parents helped. The oldest child, Joseph Francis Thomas also helped in raising the family.

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: Do you know the name of the biological father[s]?

If so, you can add them as biological father with no relationship to the mother.

LegacyUser

Jessie Hearle said: I have the issue in my family.
My gggm had 2 children with her husband & 2 after his death with an unknown man or men.
Add the relationship type as step & it should remove the data warning

No red data warning shows on my family.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: I am showing their Biological parents, and showing no relationship between parents.
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...

LegacyUser

Jessie Hearle said: This shows that the red data warning goes away when the parent-child relationship between Abijah & James is marked as Step.

I edited the relationship to provide the screenshots but will remove it so you can add your preferred reason statement if desired.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Jessie, it might take the Red Data Problem away, but I don't like the fact that it marks Abijah Montgomery Thomas as their Step-Father.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Don,

Would you prefer it to be left off, which in this system indicates a BIOLOGICAL parent?

That is obviously not the case so they need to be shown as a Step, Adoptive, or Guardian type relationship.

Call a spade a spade. If they are not the biological children, then don't mark them as such. If you are doing anything else, the documentation represented there is WRONG.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Good. You hadn't mentioned it, so I was concerned. I'm glad for you and your family.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I am not sure where the advice should come from. FamilySearch, maybe, but also possibly the temple department (your local temple presidency), on how to mark the relationship.

I agree with you, Don, that step would not be correct. But neither is biological or even guardian. See if your local temple presidency has any answers or maybe someone from FamilySearch can give you a response that would be appropriate.

One thing is certain -- you were correct in raising this issue. There may be a need to either allow the data problem to be dismissed, or a new relationship added as an option...

LegacyUser

Brett said: Or, BOTH.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Jeff Wiseman, I am showing the children's (Biological) parents.



I just also want them in the Abijah Montgomery Thomas and Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas household, and apart of that family, without Red Data ProblIems.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: As I mentioned before, you are "lying" about the parent child relationship type in the Tree and the system software is seeing it.

You have documented that a biological father of James Chester Barton Thomas (i.e., Abijah) died in 1863 and yet his child James was born in 1867. That is an impossibility and will ALWAYS trigger a data error.

The FACT is that he is essentially a step-child of Abijah and needs to be marked as such, if for no other reason than to identify that he was NOT biological.

There is nothing wrong in this arrangement. Trying to hide the facts simply screws up the records. Many children are sealed to step parents--even in live ordinances. This is a very common thing and should not be somehow viewed as "undesirable". You should probably set it up as Jessie Hearle pointed out above.

We are always used to moving forward in time and with that limitation, a child born to a biological father AFTER a previous non-biological father passed away would not intuitively be seen as a step child to the previous father. Technically it is not exactly correct because if it was, then the Thomas kids (Joseph, Nancy, William, and Letitia) would all have to be step sisters and brothers. But they are NOT. They are half-siblings! Unfortunately, the system does not have a formal relationship type defined for this situation. Using the step relationship is probably just as good as anything, but the intent is to show the relationship as "non-biological" so that the system doesn't get confused.

However, on one other subject, if there was no evidence of any "formal" relationship between Malinda and James Chester Barton Thomas' biological father, the couple relationship between the biological parents should be removed. The system supports this type of structure. For an example of this, see Cecil Fern Santee KVGH-DHV.

Cecil's birth surname was Thurman (not "Woodward" from her biological father as he was no longer around). After her biological mother Birdie Thurman married Joseph Santee, Cecil was Joseph's step daughter. However, Joseph formally adopted Cecil so she would up with her adopted father's surname of Santee.

Hope this helps

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: The family relationship is a "non-biological father", which is generic. Adoptive, Guardian, and Step fathers are just more specific type of the "non-biological father" relationship which does not exist in the system (yet)

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Also if James Chester Barton Thomas is the child of both parents, why is Hannah Mariah Crow Thomas not the child of both parents? Oh yes that's because there's a THIRD person coming in as well. Apparently Hannah Mariah Crow Thomas is the child of both Abijah Montgomery Thomas and William Crow, with Abijah being dead for nine years before "fathering" Hannah Thomas.

Oh but it gets even better! Hannah Thomas apparently married William Metzger in 1913, and then married Frank Lee Wilson in 1914 with no evidence for either death of Metzger or divorce from Metzger.

I'd say that this part of FSFT has an awful lot more problems than just one person with two "biological" fathers!

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: From Don's original post, he had already mentioned that there were two illegitimate children and the birth dates show that Hannah was obviously one of them. I suspect that Don is just in the middle of trying to correct some of this stuff.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: You ARE showing relationships between the biological parents by having them linked as a "couple". That turns the biological father and mother into a husband and wife. The relationship between the parents is totally independent of the relationship between any of the parents and the children.

Furthermore, if you leave that couple relationship in place, someone is going to snatch it up via Ordinances Ready, and will go and do the sealing to spouses for those never marriage biological parents!

You don't want to show a formal couple relationship where none ever existed.

Go to James Chester Barton's couple relationship and remove the wife that never existed. The son will remain attached to both parents, but the parents will no longer be shown as ever having a formal relationship.

Then do the same thing with William Crow.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: If one looks, they will see that James Chester Barton Thomas is the biological son of James Chester Barton and Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas. If one looks, they will see that Hannah Mariah Crow Thomas is the Biological daughter of William Crow and Malinda A (Dalton) Thomas. If one looks they will see that there was an annulment between Hannah Mariah Crow Thomas and a Mr. William Metzger. I guess it is easier to find fault and criticize than it is to look.

I think FamilySearch must realize that under certain circumstances we need to dismiss the Red Data Problems.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Don

'Yes', you are correct.

"FamilySearch" must realise that under certain circumstances we NEED to "Dismiss" ALL "Red" Problems; but, only with the inclusion of a "Reason Statement".

And, as 'Tom' said above, "...There may be a need to either allow the data problem to be dismissed, or a new relationship added as an option..."

There is a NEED for a NEW (ie. Additional) "Parent-Child Relation of, say "Other".

All-be-it, for Our (Church) purposes.

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Missed the annulment event (showing the need for making the events in the expanded couple section bigger for a start). Beyond making the events bigger in the expanded couple section, another thing that would also help is to have events like annulments and divorces affect the display of the original marriage summary. So instead of showing:

Marriage: 11 July 1913

Instead what should be shown is something like:

Marriage: 11 July 1913 (Annulled)

That way it is very clear what happened to the marriage. There is more than enough white space to accommodate the extra text in the interface.

That said, it still doesn't alter the fact that the data problem highlights are perfectly correct. There cannot be two biological fathers. In this case the later children certainly shouldn't be in the family of the earlier marriage. They had no relationship at all with the dead man. It's not like they were children of an earlier marriage who were de facto or de jure adopted by a second or subsequent husband. These data problem highlights are not only legitimate, but it definitely should not be possible to dismiss them. It should only be possible to remedy the problem highlighted.

BTW I've standardised the date of the annulled marriage and I've deleted the two spurious residences left over on the profile of William Metzger which were detritous from earlier attachment and then removal of census sources in August last year.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: I agree. However, it doesn't seem to be understood by the system developers yet that for a given COUPLE, there can be MULTIPLE events (e.g., marriage, divorce, 2nd marriage to same person, etc.).

When the system wants to pick an arbitrary event out of a list and display only it because they don't want to increase the size of the display, it just doesn't cut it. All events apply for a given couple and therefore ALL events should be visible at the same level.

There is no way that you should be able to dismiss data errors in order to hide incorrect information that has been entered on the site

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Tom, I might have lied to you and everyone else when I said permission was given. After I stated permission was given, I went looking for the old family group sheet of my Great Uncle Harry Delbert Thomas where I had seen it, but I can not seem to find that family group sheet now. Guess I will have to make a trip to the Ordinances room in the Family History Library.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: No worries, Don. I believe that permission was granted, but because that is an ordinance note, there is nowhere to record that for members only on the person's record.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Jeff, I tried doing what you stated above and all it did was remove Malinda, or the wife, from James Chester Barton, leaving him only connected to his biological son, James Chester Barton Thomas. The son did not remain attached to both parents in that Malinda, or the mother was completely removed.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: If you performed that action while on James Chester Barton's page, you would see exactly what you have described. Since Malinda is no longer related to Him, she is gone FROM THAT PAGE. But her relationship to her son should still be intact. You should be able to see it from either Malinda's page or her son's page.

If not, the detachment wasn't done quite right.

What you should see on James Chester Barton Thomas' page (i.e., the son) is that He'll have a step relationship with the father in the Abijah Thomas/Malinda Dalton COUPLE (and a biological relationship with his mother Malinda in that couple relationship). His Biological father will also be there showing his biological relationship to him. However, his Father James Chester Barton will NOT have a couple relationship with anyone--i.e., He will not have a spouse.

I've removed the couple relations ship for you. Look at this result:

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Also note that typical to a lot of the change history entries, the truth is sometimes shrouded in improper terminology:



Although the top entry could be construed as "correct' from a software stand point, it is NOT conveying the proper information to the user here causing confusion.

The mother of James Chester Barton Thomas (Malinda) has NOT been removed from him! The "Mother" part of the Malinda/James Barton couple relationship has been removed because the couple relationship itself has been deleted.

I.e., the relationship of Malinda to her son by way of her couple relationship with James Barton has been removed but her relationship directly to her son is still shown on both her and her son's person pages

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Would be nice if both biological parents could be attached to James Chester Barton Thomas, and both showing in the FamilySearch "Family Tree," but somehow showing no need for a marriage ordinance or sealing. I see that Malinda must go in order to stop a marriage sealing that really never existed. Thanks for you help, - Don

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said:

Would be nice if both biological parents could be attached to James Chester Barton Thomas, and both showing in the FamilySearch "Family Tree,"

Actually, they ARE both showing (see the son's page I attach two comments back). And the fact that the biological father never had a "couple relationship" (e.g., a marriage) with anyone is now clearly documented.

The only side effect here is that instead of branching in binary (i.e., in "twos") as you go back on your ancestral line, you now have a spot where it branches THREE ways. The pedigree allows for this in that you can pick which branches to follow:





You can also set it up for which branch you prefer to normally work in and it will use that branch by default.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Jessie, thank you very much for trying to help with the step relationship type. It took me awhile to come around. Thanks again. - Don