Guardianship relationship yields erroneous family ties
Certain relationships treat a guardianship as equivalent to biological parents. For example, I just received a notification that one of my relatives immigrated from europe back in the 1700's. The relationship shown traces from my gr-grandfather up through an unrelated woman who raised him and is shown as his guardian. The unrelated woman does trace back to the immigrate but my gr-grandfather doesn't.
I have tried to delete the guardianship relationship but another member of this site insists on keeping it. This is the second or third time that the guardianship relationship has produced erroneous results. The processing of guardianship relationships needs changed.
Comments
-
@Andrew VK , I think numerous adoptees would disagree with your actions of removing adopted relationships. In my opinion, since FamilyTree is a shared tree, you should leave those relationships ( adopted, step etc.) The problem @bobhobbs1 is having, is not in having those relationships on the tree but in the way the notices are generated.
4 -
I would rephrase it as "some tools treat a guardian like a biological parent". And I agree that causes problems.
0 -
@Andrew VK, in my opinion, removing "all adopted relationships whenever I find them" qualifies as vandalism. Genealogy is about a lot more than just biology.
5 -
@bobhobbs1 ( and, OTHERS )
FYI
Just so that you are aware ...
Please be advised that ...
For Users/Patrons, of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', who are Members of the Church, the "Parent-Child" Relationship, of "Guardianship", is an oft used; and, a VERY "Important", Relationship 'Type'.
Such is most probably WHY the OTHER User/Patron KEEPS re-establishing that "Parent-Child" Relationship, of "Guardianship".
Can I humbly request, that you simply allow, the OTHER User/Patron to maintain that "Parent-Child" Relationship, of "Guardianship".
Such, can sometimes, be required, for Members of the Church, to follow, the tenets associated, with the Church.
And
ALL ...
As well as, the "Parent-Child" Relationship, of "Guardianship", the OTHER "Parent-Child" Relationships of, "Adopted"; "Step"; and, "Foster", are ALSO Very "Important", Relationship 'Types', for Users/Patrons, of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', who are Members of the Church.
Again, such, can also sometimes, be required, for Members of the Church, to follow, the tenets associated, with the Church.
So ...
That Said ...
Can I humbly request, that you ALL, simply allow, the OTHER Users/Patrons of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; particularly, those Users/Patrons, who are Members of the Church, to maintain, ALL the OTHER "Parent-Child" Relationships 'Type', such; as, "Adopted"; "Step"; "Foster"; and, "Guardianship".
Furthermore ...
"Family Tree" (and, its forerunner "New.FamilySearch") of 'FamilySearch' was (/were) originally established, by the Church, for Members of the Church, to follow the tenets associated, with the Church; and, "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is STILL used, by Members of the Church, for that very purpose, even TODAY.
Please allow, Members of the Church, to maintain the integrity, of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', to follow the tenets associated, with the Church.
I have explained the aforementioned to MANY Users/Patrons, of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', who are NOT members of the Church; and, who visit "Family History Centres" of the Church; and, in fact, I have also done the same, to some (possibly, many), from ALL around the World, while travelling.
And, as far as I am aware (and, I am STILL, in contact with many), those that I have explained the aforementioned to, understand; and, respect, the use of ALL the OTHER "Parent-Child" Relationships 'Type', such; as, "Adopted"; "Step"; "Foster"; and, "Guardianship", in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
So, in future ...
Please ...
DO NOT, summarily; and, arbitrarily, "Delete"/"Remove", the various OTHER "Parent-Child" Relationships 'Type', of "Adopted"; "Step"; "Foster"; and, "Guardianship", 'Types', from "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Humbly submitted for your immediate, information; attention; and, consideration.
'Thank You' in advance.
Your cooperation, would be greatly appreciated.
Kind Regards
Brett
2 -
FYI
That is just fine ...
But, despite that ...
In future, please, DO NOT, summarily; and, arbitrarily, "Delete"/"Remove", the various OTHER "Parent-Child" Relationships 'Type', of "Adopted"; "Step"; "Foster"; and, "Guardianship", 'Types', from "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
As the OTHER "Parent-Child" Relationships of, "Adopted"; "Step"; "Foster"; and, "Guardianship", are Very "Important", Relationship 'Types', for Users/Patrons, of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', who are Members of the Church.
Such, can sometimes, be required, for Members of the Church, to follow, the tenets associated, with the Church.
'Thank You' in advance.
Your cooperation, would be greatly appreciated.
Kind Regards
Brett
1 -
@Andrew VK, why this severe and unreasonable antipathy toward non-genetic relationships? Genetics is only a very minor part of life, and it can never tell the full story.
(Genetically, my sister and I are the same. So should I not enter her separately on my family tree, because that's what the DNA says?)
3 -
Why do you not seem to have any understanding of the personal feelings of many Family Tree users? Since I am not "LDS" I will not deal with the aspects related to any religious beliefs attached to the subject.
Many individuals have been brought up by adoptive parents and no doubt have closer feelings and ties to their adoptive family than their biological one. Why do you seemingly want to deprive them of researching these family lines, by insisting only biological relationships are relevant to ones genealogy?
If you are removing non-biological relationships from Family Tree, I agree this really does constitute vandalism and would expect FamilySearch moderators to be taking note of your attitude and actions.
4 -
Reality includes things like "Who took care of this child after her parents died of cholera when she was three months old?" The answer is arguably more relevant to her life story -- her genealogy -- than, say, her father's occupation, because it determines where she lived and who she knew, and therefore who (or whether) she married.
As I said somewhere above: family history is about a whole lot more than mere genetics. DNA cannot tell my sister and me apart. Our family tree can.
3 -
Perhaps starting a DNA Tree would be a good idea. Are you up for it? Otherwise follow the guidelines of
Family Search as it is not yours to change.
2 -
I will state it once more, and then I'm done talking to the wall:
Genealogy is about A LOT MORE than just biology.
Limiting yourself to biological relationships is like insisting that music consists solely of melody. You're missing more than half the story.
You're of course totally free to hobble yourself this way, but please do not impose your narrow view on everyone else by vandalizing the tree.
3 -
FYI
I DO NOT need a definition of of "Genealogy".
But, as you have brought it up ...
I do not know where you got that definition ...
But, I prefer this one ...
From "Encyclopædia Britannica" on-line ...
Genealogy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/genealogy
Genealogy, the study of family origins and history.
And ...
Of course, not to forget ...
Family
https://www.britannica.com/topic/family-kinship
Family, a group of persons united by the ties of marriage, blood, or adoption, constituting a single household and interacting with each other in their respective social positions, usually those of spouses, parents, children, and siblings.
Brett
3 -
I think you are confusing the issue here. Genealogy can involve the study of ones ancestry or the ancestry of others - including those of your adopted parents, or anybody else.
Okay, some may be confused by a branch showing a person connected to their adoptive parents who, in turn, have lines of their ancestry connected to them. However, it is only if the (default) biological relationship is not changed to an adoptive one that there should be any justification for a Family Tree user to believe they are viewing the ancestry / genealogy of the adoptive child.
I'm sure everyone can see your argument from a "scientific / DNA" point of view, but it is my understanding that the purpose of Family Tree (as produced under the auspices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is to record all known relationships, in line with their stress on the importance of not only biological relationships, but other close ones, too.
0 -
FYI
There is NOTHING either, misleading; and/or, confusing, in 'Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', regarding OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships.
The ONLY real problem/issue arises, when the CORRECT "Type" of Relationship, is NOT 'Set', if there are OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships involved.
That is NOT, the fault of; nor, a failure in, the "System" (ie. "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'), that is a lack of understanding on the part of the User/Patron.
People make MISTAKES.
We ALL make MISTAKES.
NONE of us are PERFECT.
That is part, of what we can ALSO do; as, Users/Patrons - address/fix the MISTAKES of Other Users/Patrons.
But ...
That Said ...
The OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships, are NOT always "Mistakes".
ALL of us have "Biological" ("Type") of "Parent-Child" Relationship.
And, MANY; Many; many, of us have the OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships, in either, our IMMEDIATE Family; and/or, our EXTENDED Family, Relationships; and, Ancestry.
Hence ...
WHY in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', there is not only the "Biological" [ ie. "Blood" ] ("Type") of "Parent-Child" Relationship; but, ALSO, the OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships.
Being such as; but, not limited to ...
"Couple" Relationships
▬ "Blank" (ie. NOTHING); but, they WERE the Parents of a Child
▬ Marriage
▬ Common Law
▬ Lived Together
"Parent-Child" Relationships
▬ Biological
▬ Step
▬ Adoptive
▬ Foster
▬ Guardianship
Like it or not ...
Genealogy/Family History is Much MORE than just "Blood" Relationships.
MANY; Many; many, of the Users/Patrons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', understand; and, accept that.
Just like, MANY; Many, many, Users/Patrons, of the various OTHER Genealogical ('On-Line') Websites.
The OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships exist EVERYWHERE.
One may personally, not like; agree with; and/or, accept, that the OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships should, form part of; and/or, be displayed as, a Family Relationship; as, being part of Genealogy/Family History.
Whereas ...
MANY; Many; many, of the Users/Patrons, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', understand; want; and/or, accept, that the OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships, DO form part of; and/or, SHOULD be displayed as, a Family Relationship; as, being part of Genealogy/Family History.
So ...
That Said ...
One DOES NOT personally, have to include the OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships, in one's IMMEDIATE Family; whereas, one should (please) ALLOW Other Users/Patrons (including those also involved in one's "Ancestral" Lines) to INCUDE the OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships, if they so desire.
Please, DO NOT, summarily; and, arbitrarily, "Delete"/"Remove", the various OTHER "Types" of (either, "Parent-Child"; and/or, "Couple") Relationships, that have been entered/input, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by Other Users/Patrons; as, they are NOT always "Mistakes".
Humbly submitted for your immediate, information; attention; and, consideration.
'Thank You' in advance.
Your cooperation, would be greatly appreciated.
Kind Regards
Brett
1 -
Where the non-biological parent relationships cause the most problems for me is in the ancestry tree viewer on Family Tree. It follows the Preferred Relationship line.
1 -
@Andrew VK
Definition of genealogy
1 : an account of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms
2 : regular descent of a person, family, or group of organisms from a progenitor (see progenitor sense 1) or older form : pedigree
3 : the study of family ancestral lines
4 : an account of the origin and historical development of something
Plenty of definitions like this. Note: "...the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor", so not necessarily ones ancestry.
You are still not addressing the facts:
(1) Genealogy does not have to relate to a study of your/ones ancestry.
(2) Family Tree is designed so that adoptive children, etc. can connect themselves to their adoptive / step parents within the program.
You are entitled to your point of view, but not to insist the definition you choose to quote is the only factual one.
0 -
Notwithstanding my previous comments, I think I am coming round to see your argument! Perhaps not in the way you have expressed it, but certainly in line with the original post of @bobhobbs1.
I still don't see the problem of, say, listing a stepchild (or adoptive one) under his non-biological parent(s). However, the specified non-biological relationship (Adoptive, Foster, Guardian or Step) should certainly not allow for that child to be carried over to the pedigree views - giving the impression that he/she had the same relationship to the parent(s) as the rest of their (biological) children.
So, I do agree the program should be tweaked to prevent the appearance of the child in this way (i.e. in a pedigree view), which clearly does give the impression of them being part of a branch to which they do not belong.
In summary, I believe the option to add a child in one of these relationships (to either or both parents) should remain, but this indicated relationship should prevent that child from being present in any family branch in which it clearly does not belong.
(BTW - on seeing that adding these relationships does mean these children are being treated the same as if they were biological ones, I have added my "vote" to bobhobbs1's original post. I have also removed my g-g-grandfather's stepchild from any relationship with him - I know both her biological parents - until such a time I can add this relationship without it meaning she appears as his actual / biological daughter, when I switch to Landscape view.)
0
