Label needed for DNA Union - not a marriage or cohabitation
Both of my DNA parents were NPEs themselves. None of these relationships which resulted in a child were marriages - common law, or legal. The couples also did not "cohabitate." I would find it helpful for FamilySearch to include a relationship category of DNA Union. The children are biological children of two people who did not live together, and did not marry. In this particular case, the DNA parents were married to other people, and the children in this case are sealed to those married couples. Since FamilySearch is encouraging us to participate in DNA research, it would be helpful to have an appropriate label for children born from affairs, ****, or artificial insemination involving third party donors, etc. Please provide an option for those couple relationships which would not result in the couple being sealed. Thank you.
Comments
-
This area is one of only a few where the doctrines of the LDS Church seems to drive how data like the relationships between biological parents is recorded.
My 3G-GPs (on one line) were not married, nor did they live together. I get told things like "Don't add / remove a relationship between them to stop them going forward for sealing." As a non-member, I really don't care about sealing - I want a clear, explicit description of the real-life relationship between the two (e.g. "Short-term affair") not an omitted one that is driven by ease of conformance to sealing processes.
Heather adds some extra variations on this theme worth thinking about.
The real-life details need to be explicitly recorded, whatever they are - whether or not that then goes forward for sealing needs to be a later decision that I don't see. I am, however, quite happy to supply my best view of the facts that will inform those decisions later.
4 -
Heather
'Yes' ...
There are/were, in fact, certainly, MANY; Many; many, "Couple" Relationships, which resulted in a Child (or, more); where, there was NO, Marriage; and/or, Common-Law situation; and/or, Lived Together (ie. "Cohabitation").
That is nothing new ...
And ...
Furthermore ...
Such "Couple" Relations, that DID NOT exist, in the form of, Marriages; and/or, Common-Law situations; and/or, Lived Together (ie. "Cohabitation"), CAN already be INCLUDED in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
It is a matter of just LEAVING the (Couple) "Event" as "Blank" (ie. NOTHING recorded).
And, there are, MANY; Many; many, "Couple" Relationships, where it is NOT appropriate to "Seal" a "Couple".
What we really need is a "Check Box" with "Reason Statement", where a User/Patron can "Mark", to indicate WHY, they consider that a "Couple", should NOT be "Sealed".
But ...
That said ...
Even with such a "Check Box" with "Reason Statement", where a User/Patron can "Mark", to indicate WHY, they consider that a "Couple", should NOT be "Sealed", ANOTHER User/Patron can come along, at a later date; and, "Remove" that "Check Box"; and, subsequently, "Seal" that "Couple".
That is simply the nature of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', which is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person (or, "Couple" Relationship; or, "Parent-Child" Relationship) in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
And ...
As to ...
A, "DNA Union"; and/or, "Artificial Insemination; and/or, the like; specifically, for "Third Party" Donors ...
They, in fact, could be ADDED to the "Types" of "Parent-Child" Relationships, RATHER THAN, those of a "Couple" Relationship; as, that RELATES more so to the "Parent-Child" Relationship; as opposed to, the "Couple" Relationship.
And ...
In any case ...
Until such "Types" have been ADDED to/as "Types" of "Parent-Child" Relationships ...
One can simply ADD such INFORMATION to, "Reason Statements"; and, "Notes"; and, "Discussions", against, (ALL of) Individuals/Ppersons; and, "Couple" Relationships; and, "Parent-Child" Relationships, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Such is NOT limited in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
==========
Adrian
Please DO NOT confuse,
▬ WHY "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' exists;
▬ the reasons WHY Members of the Church do Genealogy/Family History; and,
▬ the WAY "Couple" Relationships exist and have evolved (and continue to evolve) in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
The precepts of WHY Members of the Church do Genealogy/Family History DID NOT 'drive' how data, like the relationships between "Couples", are/were recorded.
The origins (in example for, "PAF"; "New.FamilySearch"; and, later, "Family Tree") of the relationships between "Couples" was originally just taken from the, THEN, "Genealogical" Standard for a "Couple", all-be-it, generally that of a Husband and Wife; but, certainly, NOT always.
Some Members of the Church may have the 'misguided' thoughts that, a "Couple" relationship, OTHER THAN, that of a Husband and Wife, should NOT appear or be recorded, as such (and, they make those thoughts known ...).
But ...
That said ...
Such is certainly far from the case ...
Plus, in, "PAF"; "New.FamilySearch"; and, later, "Family Tree" ...
The "Events" for a "Couple" Relationship, were always very limited ...
▬ Marriage
▬ Common Law
▬ Annulment
▬ Divorce
But, such "Events" are evolving, there is NOW ... "Lived Together"
And ...
There was NEVER a SAME Gender Relationship; whereas, there is NOW ...
These things EVOLVE ... all-be-it, extremely slowly ...
And, for a "Couple" Relationship, where a Child came into being, who NEVER, Married; had a Common Law (Relationship); or, Lived Together ...
THEN, that is EASY ... just LEAVE the "Event" as "Blank" (ie. NOTHING Recorded).
Whether one (ie. a User/Patron) is a Member of the Church or not, "Technically", has NO bearing on "Couple" Relationships.
We DO NOT need a clear, explicit, description of what a real-life "Couple" Relationship is, in "Family Tree" of 'Family Search'.
Because ...
There is NO such thing ...
There can be DIFFERENT forms of "Couple" Relationships.
DO NOT concern one's self with, WHY; or, HOW, Members of the Church do Genealogy/Family History.
The ONLY thing that may come into play is, with HOW, "Other" Users/Patrons (be-they, Members of the Church or not) WANT to 'See' HOW a specific "Couple" Relationship appears.
You are certainly NOT the ONLY one who has had to deal with that ...
And. that applies EQUALLY to Users/Patrons who are, either, Members of the Church or not ...
Been there, done that ... still do ...
And ...
Furthermore ...
Those extra variations, that 'Heather' ADDED, are what happens as 'Time' progresses; and, 'Yes', such nuances WILL need to be factored into "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch', OVER 'Time'.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: In my "Ancestral" Lines, I have MANY; Many; many, "Couple" Relationships, which resulted in a Child (or, more); where, there was NO, Marriage; and/or, Common-Law situation; and/or, Lived Together (ie. "Cohabitation"); and, I record them as such.
0 -
What I do in this situation is simply link the couple, leaving the details blank. The "marriage" link has an optional note field, but if I wanted to explain the situation I probably would put it in the Life Story.
[Edit to add:] Is the "Biological" relationship type not sufficient?
0 -
FYI
You are not alone ...
Such, has been requested, by MANY Other Users/Patrons, on COUNTLESS occasions, in the various 'FamilySearch' Forums (eg. the OLD 'FamilySearch' ("Get Satisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum; and, the PREVIOUS Platform of this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; and, even this NEW Platform of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum).
As, either, an 'Event' Option of "Never Married"; and / or, a 'Check Box' for "Never Married", preferably, BOTH, with a REQUIRED "Reason Statement" (ie. "Reason this is Correct").
Where, such, is NOT 'set in stone' (so to speak); but, CAN be, "Changed"; and / or, "Edited"; as, Users /Patrons, can; and, do, make "Mistakes".
For whatever reason such had not be implemented.
We have previously been advised by 'FamilySearch' that the "Couple Relationship" Part of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is undergoing 'ongoing' change/updating; and, to 'stay tuned'.
We have already 'seen', evidence, of this 'ongoing' change/updating, with the addition of the likes of, the 'Event' Option of "Lived Together"; and, the 'Relationship' of "Same Gender" relationships.
Due to the complexity and enormity of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', such' ongoing' change/updating, just takes 'Time.
We just have to be patient ...
Of course, easier said, than done ...
Plus ...
Just in case ...
A few things that you should be aware of, is that there are, MANY; Many; many, competing priorities in "Family Tree" (and, the OTHER) Part(s) of 'FamilySearch'; and, there are very limited Resources available to 'FamilySearch'.
'FamilySearch' was created by the Church.
'FamilySearch' is a FREE website.
'FamilySearch' is NOT a "Commercial" (ie. "Subscription"/"Paid") website.
Just so you are aware ...
Brett
0 -
In the couple relationship area, please add a category for DNA event. In my case, I have three NPE (non parental event) situations in my immediate family. For each couple listed, the DNA parents of the child were married to other people at the time of both the conception and birth of their DNA child. They never married one another, nor cohabitated. The FamilySearch program only offers the following options: Annulment, Common Law Marriage, Divorce, Lived Together, Marriage. None of those categories apply in this situation. The FamilySearch program prompts sealings for these couples, but they are each sealed to the spouse to whom they were married.
Being prompted to seal these couples is problematic, since there was no legal, or even societally accepted relationship. In addition, for some NPE situations, such a prompt can be traumatic, as DNA events can result from ****, an affair, or other distressing activity. With the advances in and popularity of DNA testing the discovery of such birth events is increasing. It would be helpful to have the additional option of "DNA Event" or some equivalent in the dropdown menu for marriage/relationship definitions. In my opinion, it would also be helpful to block this option from resulting in an automatic potential sealing.
Thank you.
0 -
If the parents did not have a couple relationship, do not enter them as a couple.
To illustrate, I added a fictional father to my great-grandmother on beta.familysearch:
0 -
Dunno why the screenshot is still an hourglass. Maybe because I edited it to be smaller?
I'm going to try again. This is how I believe a person's biological parents should be entered if they were never in a couple relationship:
1 -
I am undecided about this. I see your point, Julia. I think I prefer to join the parents as a couple, even though they merely coupled, or there was a sperm donation event, or a ****, or whatever. They are the two biological parents of the child.
0 -
Thank you for the responses. The problem I see with listing a child individually with each DNA parent is that future generations will then spend time looking for spouses for each parent, and then sealing the offspring to those marriages. Since FamilySearch is encouraging DNA testing, it would make sense to create categories for DNA events, which would not necessarily result in sealings. Currently, I seal the DNA child with their legal parents - the ones on the birth certificate. Nevertheless, if we are going to encourage DNA testing, I believe that room should be made in FamilySearch for these situations.
0 -
@Adrian Bruce1 Thank you for your thoughtful response to my suggestion. I agree with your well-spoken statement: " The real-life details need to be explicitly recorded, whatever they are - whether or not that then goes forward for sealing needs to be a later decision that I don't see. I am, however, quite happy to supply my best view of the facts that will inform those decisions later." That is my perspective, as well. I am LDS, but with my complicated family tree, I will never be able to do all the temple work. My desire is to do the best research I am able to do, so that those who follow will have as clear a path as I am able to mark. I don't want people spending time trying to find a marriage when there isn't one. I wish FamilySearch gave me options, including those you mentioned.
0 -
This suggestion seems to duplicate Label needed for DNA Union - not a marriage or cohabitation
1 -
Would an additional choice of Relationship Event or Relationship Fact on the Couple Relationship serve this purpose?
0
