We need NEVER MARRIED in the marriage events.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Know of Brother and Sister in-Laws making a baby. The Brother-in-Law never leaves his wife, which wife is the sister to the Sister-in-Law he made the baby with. The pregnant Sister-in-Law goes off into the Osage Nation, Indian Territory and gets married a month or two before the baby is born. The baby takes the name of his Step-Father.

In order to be correct, and have this baby in the FamilySearch "Family Tree," I want to show Brother and Sister in-Laws as the biological parents. Showing biological parents in the FamilySearch "Family Tree" makes them a couple. Even thought I know that they never were a couple, or lived together as man and wife, and were never married. We need NEVER MARRIED in the Marriage events.

The wife of the baby that the in-Laws made, told the truth, on her husbands Oklahoma Death Certificate. Also oral history, past down, comes into play here.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: There is some default behavior that creates the couple relationship. So here a couple things to try.
1. Go create the child under one of the parents. Now add the other parent. I think this does not auto-create a couple relationship.
2. Go set the lineage type (Biological) to both the parents by clicking on the parent-child relationship icon next to the child.
3. If the couple relationship exists, you can delete that by clicking on the relationship, then delete relationship at the bottom.
4. Also, on the Person details  | Other Info | Facts there is a No Couple Relationship Fact that you can declare. I think that's an odd place and as you suggest should be between the two people. In previous posts I was hoping for that and referred to it as "Not married together".

LegacyUser

Paul said: I don't necessarily want to be seen as encouraging this sort of action, but here is one way around the problem!

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: with that ugly red warning, you need to click space bar at the end then pick it to force acceptance. Put "never married" in place box.

Take another look (refresh page on your end if you haven't)

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: I did as you stated above W David, but I kept getting the Red Data Problem showing. I tried adding "Never Married" to the place box, but did not like it when a place in Russia was chosen by Standardizing.

I did add "Never Married" and hit the space bar, but could not get it to take away the ugly RED WARRING exclamation mark. I then deleted the "Never Married," and in deleting the "Never Married" it also took away the "NO MARRIAGE EVENTS" between the couple. So now there is nothing showing between the male and female. I guess the nothing showing between the male and female is the best we are going to get from FamilySearch. I know NEVER MARRIED has been asked for in the past and it seems to fall on deaf ears.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Don, you're doing it right but you did the last step wrong.

You type in Never Married in place box, then the list pop up, select the very first one that is actually not standardized then SAVE it. It get accepted and won't get flagged.

see here


Go ahead and look at the one I fixed for you. No red warning.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: This same option could be used for "Living Together" and "No Children" -- I also do not recommend this, but it is something to use until such time that FamilySearch finally gets around to working on a major upgrade of the couple (family) relationship area.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Thanks W David, I will give it a try next time I need "Never Married," or need to put something else in the marriage events like Tom suggest.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Tom, agreed and there is already option for "No Children" in "Other Information" section. The one where it says "No Couple Relationships" this is not accurate in many cases I am aware of. Should have "Never Married" or "Common Law Marriage" in the marriage section.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Just to advise, I have removed the "never married" text from this couple's relationship box. This was only meant to be illustrative, as there was actually no evidence for the statement in this particular case. As stated earlier, I am not encouraging this practice, just pointing to a way to make a known fact clearer than is currently the case.

As expressed in my comments in other threads, I am generally against these "no marriage / no children" statements, as they are often more down to speculation than concrete evidence.

Obviously, "never married" could be placed against a relationship that took place when one or both of the couple were married to other individuals at that time - although a (possible) bigamous marriage would complicate the situation, of course!