adding a 'spouse' to your tree
i would like to draw your attention that the word 'spouse' does not encompass all types of relationships, & i feel this word needs to be changed to reflect this.
i have a daughter with a former boyfriend (now long deceased) but i cannot add his name because he was never a spouse.
why can't the spouse button be renamed & called 'father/mother' ??
please consider this, thanks.
carola hume
Comments
-
Carola
.
'Yes' the word/term "Spouse" is misleading ...
.
Technically "Spouse" requires either a "Marriage" or a "Common-Law Marriage" (ie. long-term relationship that is semi-recognised by some countries but lacks all the benefits of a formal marriage).
.
However, it is often used in a more flexible sense to also include a long-term girlfriend or boyfriend; and, includes "Same" Gender - as the case may be.
.
Now ...
That said ...
.
In "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', that "Spouse" really just means a "Couple" Relationship; even if, that relationship was ONLY the result of a encounter that produced a Child.
.
Currently, "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' enables x4, Couple "Events"; or, relationship types:
.
▬ "Blank" (ie. "Not Recorded") = being NO "Event"
▬ Marriage/Married
▬ Common Law Marriage
▬ Lived Together
.
So ...
That said ...
.
In the case of your Daughter with a former Boyfriend (now long "Deceased"), they can be a "Couple"; and, you have the option of, either,
(1) leaving the "Event" as "Blank"; or,
(2) Having the "Event" as, "Common Law Marriage"; or, "Lived Together"
whichever is the more appropriate.
.
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', is becoming; and, has become, more ALL encompassing, with regard to "Couple" Relationships (eg. enabling "Same" Gender relationships ).
.
Do not despair ...
.
There is always a 'work around' ...
.
Words/Terms, such as "Spouse", still need work/clarification ...
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is getting there, all-be-it SLOWLY ...
.
Remember: Changing a Computer Programme is NOT as easy as most of us think ...
.
It take a lot of TIME ...
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
thanks brett.
i'll have a go at leaving the event as 'blank'
the boyfriend died months before the child was born, so he was never a parent either
0 -
Carola
.
Even if they "Living Together" for a VERY short period, you can use that "Event" of "Lived Together" - there is no stipulation of how long that "Lived Together" was.
.
But ...
That said ...
.
'Yes' ... IF, they DID NOT ever 'Live Together'; THEN, leaving the "Event" as "Blank" is the way to go.
.
It all depends on the situation/circumstances ...
.
Genealogy / Family History can be COMPLEX, it is not all straight forward ...
.
Life was not meant to be easy ...
.
Good Luck.
.
Brett
.
ps: Just remember make sure you add Copious "Notes", everywhere you can, about the situation/circumstances ...
.
0 -
If the boyfriend's relationship with your daughter produced a child, he would be listed as the child's father (aka parent).
0 -
Whilst by "parent" we generally take this as meaning a person who brought up the child, one would still acknowledge a person in the category you mention as being a "biological parent". I have been examining several definitions of the term (parent) from Google and believe the word is a perfectly acceptable term to apply in the instance you write about.
0 -
Add the biological Father as a parent by himself.
0 -
Jordi
.
'NO'; 'No'; 'no' ... the "Parents" DO NOT have to be SEPERATED.
.
That looks, ODD; and, ridiculous ...
.
IF, you do; THEN, another User/Patron will just come along later; and, join them as a "Couple"; but, that Other User/Patron may have NO knowledge of the actual situation/circumstances.
.
They can STILL be a "Couple", in a FORM, of a Relationship; as, they ARE the Parents of the Child.
.
You just DO NOT add an "Event", if they never "Married"; or, "Lived Together".
.
You LEAVE the 'Event' ... "Blank"
.
And, of course, you MUST "Add" COPIOUS "Notes" everywhere to the ACTUAL situation/circumstance.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Brett, I do not think that this looks odd or ridiculous at all. In fact, I personally feel that it is FAR MORE ACCURATE and LESS RIDICULOUS than documenting a couple relationship between two people who never had a couple relationship, thus forcing you to add "copious notes" to identify the fact that they had no couple relationship even though you just documented them as actually HAVING a couple relationship.
What's worse, when you insist on keeping non-couples together like that, you are pretty well guaranteeing that they will eventually be sealed together in the temple. So, in fact you are going to set things up so that every man that forced himself on a woman resulting in a child is going to end up being sealed to her.
This is a FAMILY Search database. It is for building and tracking FAMILIES, primarily for temple work to ultimately be done. If a man disappears forever after getting a woman pregnant, there was never a family there! Don't document groups of people as families here where families never existed!
The only reason that you would couple together biological parents that were never a family and never had any family related commitments to each other would be if your soul purpose in the database is tracking biological lineage with DNA. There the "Couple Relationship" would not exist. Instead it is a "Biological Parentage Relationship". That is NOT a clean subset of all Couple Relationships (not all Biological Parentage Relationships are also Couple Relationships).
FSFT is not currently set up to maximize the use of DNA for research. It is for documenting FAMILIES
FS has set this relationship and its associated relationship events as a "Couple Relationship". The existing structure is set up to support those type of relationships only (at present). Biological Parentage Relationships which were never Couple Relationships is not really included in that structure.
It is like having red hexagonal street signs that have the words "DON'T STOP" on them. It is in conflict with itself. Are you supposed to believe the meaning of the sign shape and color (e.g., the Couple Relationship box that has two persons in it), or the words written on it (e.g., copious notes and non-existing events for the Couple Relationship stating that there was no relationship)? They are in conflict with each other and it makes no logical sense to document things in that fashion in this particular database.
If you insist on doing it that way, it's fine, but personally I'd rather document all of these things in a CONSISTENT fashion that always means the same thing wherever you look.
If the Carole Hume has knowledge that the man and woman might have intended to stay together, then by all means it should be placed in a Couple Relationship. No other events occurred for that relationship so none should be recorded. Her main concern seems to be regarding the word Spouse which is understandable. "Companion" is probably a better word there as this part of the tool evolves. All Couple Relationships do not have "spouses". A "lived together" event ALSO does not have "spouses". The terminology just needs to get cleaned up.
0 -
Brett, for that family in image I think it is appropriate and I do not care what other users *might* do, and in any case that whole family is alive. Concerning Carola's case, though, it might not be a best fit and it looks like she has figured out what to do. So that is good. Edit: I just read Jeff Wiseman's comment, I pretty much agree with him.
0 -
This general issue has come up a number of times over the years. One problem is that no two cases ever seem to be EXACTLY the same. I had inputted similar instances in the way that Jeff suggests and Jordi illustrates. However, Ron Tanner then seemed to suggest it was in order to show the child directly under both parents.
Again, this is a situation whereby we could really appreciate advice from a senior manager at FamilySearch - but most employees are keeping away since this forum replaced GetSatisfaction.
From a personal point of view, it makes no difference to me either way how these records are displayed / inputted. Not being a Church member, the ordinance aspect does not affect me at all, but (as with others of the same position) I want to cooperate as much as possible, so as not to mess things up for LDS members.
So, on this occasion would a senior Church member make it unambiguous (either here or in a KA) exactly how to tackle these issues? As you can see, ordinary Church members cannot agree, so your guidance / instructions are required.
0
