Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Child with Unknown Parents link deleted from new interface

The interface no longer has a link on the details page to be able to add a child with an unknown parent. I recommend that you add this. Of course, I think I can still do this by gaming the system, but it was far better to do it with the previous link since you could check the database better to see if the person is already in the database.
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • 1
    It's back when someone has two marriages:



    So it looks like they are working on getting it back in the new version.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • 1
    I'm not certain that they consider this task unfinished: having that option only available for multiple marriages is what would happen if they only intended it to be used for cases where you know the other parent is one of the spouses, but don't know which one. That is, the current setup allows for unknown parents as long as the pool of possible identities is small and known. It doesn't allow for illegitimate children, whose fathers could be anyone present in the mother's life approximately nine months before the birth. The pool of possible identities in such cases is generally large and unknown.

    I haven't a clue whether FS has any such intentions about the use of this option; it's possible that it was put back only on multiply-married people because the engineer who was doing it wasn't a genealogist, and couldn't think of any other place you could possibly need it.

    What has me worried is something that I've only just noticed in the past day: extraction-program-derived profiles based on illegitimate births have a father entered, marked as deceased, with a question mark in the "first name" field. Are they entered this way because that's how FS prefers illegitimate births to be entered? Or are other unknown fathers entered differently in other extraction- or IGI-based profiles?

    An example that has had the child merged and edited (and the mother's surname corrected): https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...
    An unmerged example (it needs to be merged with my great-grandmother LTBG-SQ7, but I haven't figured out what to do with Mr. Question Mark): https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I believe the issue of illegitimate children (especially ones with unknown fathers) is a problematic one when it comes to ordinances. However, I do not see this should affect their entry to Family Tree. It has been straightforward enough to do so in the past, but now it isn't.

    I wondered if Gordon's illustration also applied to women who married more than once and have just found it does - having the option to "Add child with an unknown father".

    So, as Gordon suggests, it is to be hoped that this will now be extended to individuals who only married once. For example, I have found in the past that a one or two of the mothers I have entered on Family Tree already had illegitimate children when they married. It should be made easy to enter these if the events are only discovered after the entry of the later marriage. The only option, at present, is Gordon's workaround (shown in another thread) of entering another spouse for the woman (or man*) then quickly deleting that individual. Call them something like "Temporary Spouse" and obviously provide a reason statement when you delete this fictional person!

    In summary, a very unsatisfactory situation that should be put right asap.

    (* Note - I say "or man" because I have come across one case - surprisingly in a 17th century parish register - where the father of an illegitimate child is named but the identity of the mother is not clear. The baptism entry just reads, "Thomas Dow, reputed father Francis Halls". The mother is not directly named, though I have assumed her surname was Dow!)
    • Of course the other option is to add children with one unknown parent by using "?" in creating an ID. All the instances I have found of this being the practice are accredited to "FamilySearch". Okay, "?" and the known person were probably never married, but we have previously been advised to add children to unmarried (known) couples in this manner. The exception being (as I understand was recently confirmed by Ron Tanner) if the child was known to be the result of a "brief encounter" / "one night stand" - in which case the child should be recorded separately under the two (known) parents.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • This case is not an entry where the unknown parent is not mentioned. It is a Scottish Civil Record which states the birth was illegitimate and only one parent is listed.
    • While the motive for not mentioning the other parent is different, in both cases there is a deliberate non mention so I'm not convinced that those 2 cases are that different. It doesn't really matter so far as I can see. But I may be missing something.

      The illegitimacy does may be a factor because I've long since lost track of what FamilySearch wants us to record for unmarried parents. This is partly because of the use of the term spousal relationship rather than marriage but a total refusal (unless anyone knows different) to define what a spousal relationship is and how it differs from a marriage and how either differ from a family in the old fashioned GEDCOM sense.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) September 17, 2018 23:15
    We are aware of the issue and have it on the list to fix. Thanks
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • The problem is not fixed for a similar situation. There are many cases where the 3- way connections between parents and child exist. But if there are unique situation where one of the parents is missing, due to the fact that the parents are already connected to each other elsewhere, the system will not allow the child to be connected to the missing parent.

    This is not a case of a duplicate relationship (an extra single relationship to one parent that needs to be deleted). These are legitimate missing 3-way relationships, which worked fine before the change.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned