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

In the option of marriage there should be a choice as other. Product of of a one night stand and DNA testing as a reason.

1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • Although different options are often suggested, I am not sure it is appropriate for the situation you describe. They are parents, no marriage. So you don't add any marriage event. You could consider adding a Relationship Note, so that researchers who stumble across the couple don't waste time looking for marriage/sources.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Welcome to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

    When no marriage has taken place and there is evidence of parentage, leave the marriage area blank. Set up "biological" as the Relationship Type for both father-child relationship and mother-child relationship. For a source, add the DNA test that was performed and any court action taken with respect to establishing paternal responsibility.

    If the father demonstrated paternal responsibility (which should show up with him living in the same household as the mother and child, or some evidence of providing child support, then that should be noted in the relationship notes.

    Right now, the entire family relationship area needs a lot of work. The number of options available for the couple are limited to four, which is inadequate because in many cases, there are additional records involving the couple.

    We have not been told much about the couple relationship area, but it is being set up to support same-sex unions, so more is coming. A number of underlying supporting systems need to be accounted for by the code, so it is taking time to get into place.

    Any records or information about living persons cannot be seen by anyone but the person who entered the information, due to privacy laws. It is unlikely that will change anytime soon as the laws have become more restrictive where living people are involved. It is best to keep this information in a separate database. There are three fully qualified family tree management programs that interface (as much as currently is supported by FamilySearch) with the massive tree. Those are ideal for tracking living person information, sources, and other documentation. The three are listed in the Solutions Gallery and are: Ancestral Quest, Legacy, and Roots Magic. All offer similar features, though they may vary in the way those features are implemented. If you are familiar with the old PAF program, the Ancestral Quest is a good choice because it is fully compatible with the old databases and is written and supported by the author of the PAF program. All three programs have free versions that often are sufficient for most people, but you also might want to comparison shop.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I agree with the original poster who said there should be a choice for one-night-stand/affair that has been proven by DNA. Absent that we should have an option to just leave the relationship blank. Currently the choices are annulment, divorce, common-law, married. and llved together. If it is too delicate to say that the relationship was just a fling, it would be best to have a blank to choose from.
    • view 6 more comments
    • Tom

      I understand the 'conditions' involved with your statement.

      But, regardless ...

      Those 'conditions' DO NOT apply to what happened, it is history.

      If the Child was the product of ANY Relationship (good; or, bad; or, otherwise); then, that should be recorded as it is, what happened.

      Those 'conditions' ONLY apply to 'Ordinance' work.

      That is WHY we need MUCH MORE work (all sorts) in, both, the "Couple"; and, the "Parent-Child", Relationships.

      Brett

      .
    • Forget the vicarious work and consider the tree itself.

      The relationship is precisely what I am reporting. The articles had nothing to do with vicarious actions and everything to do with properly recording the situation.

      If you do not know the father's name, and the father was never part of the resulting child's life (and, as far as that goes, the mother's), then how, precisely do you record that?

      To go one step beyond the birth, how do you record the person(s) involved in supporting the child through to adulthood?

      Now if you know the father's name, do you actually put the father (who may have only donated sperm) in with the mother as a couple?

      Go back a reread the situation. If I was not clear, then how would you explain how to record the instance of sperm donor or the male in the one night stand? As in a couple relationship with the mother?

      When Jeff wrote (below)
      Birdie Thurman and Wm. Woodward never had any kind of a couple relationship, therefore, they are not shown as having had a couple relationship.
      he is correct. I'm not sure why you are thinking that I'm saying something entirely different. I'm not.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • That's exactly my thought. We don't want to make a formal relationship if one didn't exist. The way things are now with the system, we MUST choose one of five possible relationships between the couple. All imply some sort of relationship. There is no option to not put one of those five choices. Which is what you and I don't want.
    • view 1 more comment
    • So without going into familysearch and actually looking at this couple, have you indicated why Cecil is assigned William Woodward as a father with no woman to create Cecil?
    • Sure. The biological mother who created her was Birdie Thurman. This can be clearly seen above (by the absence of a relationship type inferring biological). Joseph Santee was her adopting father.

      If Birdie had never been in a "couple relationship" after Cecil was born, the image would look the same only with Joseph's information gone.

      Birdie Thurman and Wm. Woodward never had any kind of a couple relationship, therefore, THEY ARE NOT SHOWN as having had a couple relationship.

      People seem to get hung up over insisting that the biological parents must ALWAYS be shown as a couple, even if they never were. In this case if you create a couple relationship between them in relationships area, it would be a lie.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • In Family Tree I had shown the child exactly as Tom suggests, given the circumstances of an unknown "post-coital" relationship between the biological parents. However, the "official" situation did seem a bit ambiguous, so (some years back) I raised it here.

    Whether I mistook the response (by Ron Tanner) or not I cannot be sure, but following this I switched to just showing the child under the biological parents. Perhaps the situation I have is slightly different to the examples described, in that they apply to children born around 200-300 years ago, so it is impossible to be sure, for example, what kind of support the father provided.

    As Jeff has illustrated, it is perfectly simple to show a child beneath the individual parents - i.e. without them appearing under both in a relationship. Further to his illustration of the child appearing beneath (1) the the mother and stepfather and (2) the biological father, there is also the option to show a "third" relationship, with the child appearing under (just) the mother, too. If a child is illegitimate (with no known biological father) I list them in both an individual relationship with the mother and in one with the mother and known stepfather - the latter person is often clearly described as such in census records.

    What is clear is the need for a "definitive" statement on this issue, from Ron or another senior manager - if not here, in a Knowledge Article. But it has to be conceded this will always be a grey area because the actual relationship between the parents (especially those who lived centuries ago) will possibly never be known.

    In England, the existence of a "bastardy bond" from the original parish records might give an indication of financial support, but will still not show any evidence of any further ties between father and child.

    So for now, it remains a matter of judgement - largely based on our knowledge of each, individual situation - on how we show the child in Family Tree. As a person who is not an LDS church member, I do think this issue extends beyond ordinances, however.

    Hopefully, there will be an "official" response to this matter - though it will inevitably have to include "if and buts" to cover some of the exceptional issues (like multiple "stepfathers" or a "reputed" father, perhaps!) that might be involved.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Here's an example showing the difficulty in deciding how to place an illegitimate individual on the Tree. It shows the 1636 baptism of a Thomas DOW, reputed father Francis Halls. I have decided to revert to how I originally showed Thomas in FT. Note there is no record of his mother's (presumably "Miss Dow") first name. Also, should I even be showing him under Francis Halls, when he is only shown as the "reputed father"?

    Incidentally, Francis Halls was married at the time. His last child by his wife was baptised in 1635 (a year before Thomas' baptism) and his wife died in 1639. Obviously, his relationship with either his wife (Diana) between 1635 & 1639, OR that with "Miss Dow" (before or after 1635), is not known

    Extract from parish register:


    Extract from Thomas Dow's person page:
    • Paul, this seems totally appropriate to me. Even if Francis was "reputed" to be the father--that is evidence and it should be recorded as you did. The parent child relationship should have that source and maybe a note indicating that this is the only source info currently available and state your concern (actually, I would include it in a Note attached to Thomas and an identical one attached to Francis. That way it won't get lost down in the cryptic tunnels of the parent child relationship data that is never obvious)

      If later on someone comes along and provides new evidence disproving that parent-child relationship, then you make the change then based on the new (and old) evidence. That is exactly how the shared tree is supposed to evolve. It seems to me that you have done exactly that.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I might have missed some nuance in these replies but I'll provide a quick answer.

    Basically the relationships are the primarily for connectivity of a person to other persons. They are then further described by the formal/legal concept binding them together, in addition to Biological - natural fact. The evidence, like Sources can be used to back up these relationship conclusions.

    If a child has known biological parents then that child should show those parents together, the parent-child relationship. They may not be married... but they should be shown together. This makes the tree painting correct from the expected "pedigree" visualization.
    Like the above:


    The parent-child relationship to each parent would be Biological. But it could in other situations match any of the legal designators: Biological, adoptive, foster, guardianship, step.

    If a couple are married... you can "Add Couple Relationship" (like this one already has) and a marriage event (typical legal designations: married, annulment, divorced, common-law) to those parents. And if they aren't parents you can still Add the couple relationship.

    So for the above one-night stand I would expect to see the parents together with that child under them. The child has Biological The tree paints the way you would in an other program. In the parent-child relationship you can add a Note or a Source citing the DNA. If you put DNA in a Reason statement they will not always be seen, especially over time. 
    • view 2 more comments
    • I understand what you are saying about verbosity, I understand the need of a person to remember the context they are in (but of course they will frequently forget), I now understand the meanings of "X"s in the relationship editing (it wasn't real obvious to me at first), and I understand the need to try and simplify.

      But a (correct) picture says a thousand words. If the picture is structurally correct and obvious, you just don't need a lot of extra text. In general, if the documentation is structured around a structurally correct interface, in general you need a lot fewer words. I once took a 5000 page section out of a new product documentation set and reduced it to about 15 pages by simply rearranging the structure of the documentation (it also made things a LOT easier to find :-)
      Should we have different text to describe what is happening?
      The text that has appeared to be added recently in these areas does help. My preference is always that if diagrams can be skillfully used to eliminate text for mitigating confusion, it should always be done that way.
      ...most genealogy programs show it this way...
      ...These UI views are fairly common in most the programs I've seen...
      This is something that I see a lot of in the FS website. It is the mimicking of other programs. I kinda think that FS engineers need to not look so much at what others are doing since the FamilyTree is unique in the mandates that it must meet. How many other programs out there are set up to specifically feed names which have been prepared into the temple system? How many systems are set up to eliminate duplicates and maximize accuracy in as short a time as possible via a shared tree?

      FS engineers should be looking at the specific needs of THIS system and not just blindly copying mechanisms from all of the other systems out there, since this system is DIFFERENT in most cases. Without really recognizing this, these concepts could be tangential to what is really needed.
    • Viewing relationships, parent-child, couple have always been difficult and doesn't get into "associations" beyond those relationships. I would love to see a display that accurately and concisely illustrates the various permutations of relationships.  Or if you think there's another product that does a good job at this I'd love to see that too. There's always room for improvement, that is understandable b,y the customer base and hopefully resources to pull-it off.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Joe

    I have an open mind about this. However, I expect a number of other users will challenge your views. I'm sure Ron expressed things in much the same way as you, when I raised the issue here a number of years ago.

    If you are right, I have just wasted time in positioning Thomas Dow under his separate parents (as shown above), after previously having him show just once, beneath his (assumed) biological parents!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Joe (and others),

    When we do not have all the facts about a child-parent relationship, then it seems to me that we move on as if the child is born to both parents in a family relationship. This certainly applies to families going back a century or more.

    But when we have all the facts and know (not from family tradition) that the father was not involved other than the sexual act that resulted in a child, it is a different matter. This would apply to sperm donor situations, as well, where the donor is unaware of any children that were fathered from his donation.

    In those cases, I maintain that there is no couple relationship and therefore, the child would be shown under each biological parent in a separate instance.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • My situation is not centuries old but is in the here and now. My 76 year old husband had always suspected his birth certificate father who raised him, was not, in fact his father. DNA proved that several years ago. Just this year, we have identified his biological father as the neighbor down the street. We definitely know that his mother and this man had no relationship beyond a short affair.

    My husband also had an older sister who grew up with my husband as a full sibling. DNA has proved that she has a father who is not my husband's father. We found that her father was also not the man to whom her mother was married. We do know that my mother-in-law was dating this guy prior to her marriage and apparently continued her affair after the marriage. She would have married him but exigent circumstances prevented that. He died in Italy from battle wounds in WWII.

    So my mother-in-law had two children while she was married. Her children had separate father's, neither of whom where the children of her husband. She loved the father of her oldest child and grieved for him for years after his death. We have no way of knowing if love even entered into the short relationship with the second man (my husband's father.)

    But my husband has recently contacted his newly found half-siblings and they are developing a relationship.

    I understand the reasoning that my mother-in-law and her lovers should not be sealed to each other, but I strongly feel that my husband deserves to be shown to be the child of both of them together. Whether the relationship between my husband's parents was longer than 15 minutes or not, it was still long enough to produce him and having him sitting there with just the dad is not right, even if he is also listed with his mother and his ersatz father. We would also like to show the half-siblings as part of his family

    I think there should be a way to show both parents in that 15 minute relationship and at the same time put some restrictions to not allow sealing to occur in that instance.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I ponder the same question as the Topic, How would you label people that need labels not listed in the current form. If people were to Put out Ideas, it might help every one, My thoughts would be Bio/Dna Related.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Joe,

    So for the above one-night stand I would expect to see the parents together with that child under them

    There is a conflict of interest here and FS needs to belly-up to the lemonade stand and establish the standard to be used by defining exactly WHAT a “Couple Relationship” is.

    It makes no sense to graphically document two people as being a “Couple” and then having to add a relationship type or note stating that even though they are shown as a couple, that they really are NOT a couple!

    Personally, I don’t mind too much which way this goes but it needs to be clearly defined by FS. If ALL biological parents are to be shown as a couple (regardless of whether they were or not), then I guess that we will start seeing “Mr. Sperm Donor” as the biological father in some couple-relationships. It also means that the way things like Ordinances Ready work, “Mr. Sperm Donor” and the mother will eventually be sealed in the temple.

    Ron Tanner (among others) has made it clear that such things should NOT happen. If it is well documented that the mother and father were never a “Parenting” couple, then they should not be sealed. But if we insist on recording BOTH “Biological Parent” couple relationships (regardless of the type of relationship they had) AS WELL AS “parenting” couple relationships, this is likely going to happen.

    So this is the conflict:

    Traditionally, biological parents were always shown graphically as a “couple’ on pedigree records. This was fine for showing blood line lineages for property and inheritance purposes. Today it is also used when charting DNA relationships. These are all “Biological Parent” couples relating to the blood lines, but NOT necessarily “Parenting and Child Raising” type couple relationships.

    However, a key purpose of the FSFT is to organize and show true family groups headed up by “Parenting and Child Raising” type couples for submission to the temples.

    So for Family submissions to the temple we should only record “Parenting and Child Raising” type couple relationships. If a “Biological Parent” couple relationship existed, but it was NOT ALSO a “Parenting and Child Raising” type couple relationship, it wouldn’t meet the criteria of being sent to the temple, so the parents would not be recorded as a “Couple”.

    If FS wants the tree to always show biological parents as having couple relationships, The need to make it very clear as it runs contrary to what Ron Tanner seems to be saying and what many people think the database is for. DNA and blood line tracing is still possible in the database, even with some “Biological Parents” not being recorded as couples.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I would also like a version for "one-night stand/relations without relationship."

    I have an LDS ancestor who had a trial in Colonial New England and she was unmarried and with child and 2 men were named in the trial record as the potential fathers.

    (She later married and had a child with her husband, so the problem is people keep detaching the Unknown father and adding the child by the unknown father to her husband over and over.)
    • "the problem is people keep detaching the Unknown father and adding the child by the unknown father to her husband over and over.)"

      I believe this to be an important point. Leaving something empty (the unknown father's data) may well be logical but it is, I believe, always a hostage to fortune. Better by far to have something that makes an explicit statement that something is unknown, etc.

      In this case, there needs to be some sort of something (yes, that is meant to be vague!) that makes an explicit statement that the father is (so far) unknown. There are those who work on the basis that leaving his entry empty does mean that the father is unknown. Unfortunately, it could also mean that "I haven't done any research into him yet". And along comes someone like "M" refers to, who interprets the missing data as "no research done yet" and thinks, "Ah - they haven't finished off the entries here so I'll add this child to their correct [sic] father."
    • Another way to say the same thing is..."No relationship, child created"
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • This reply was removed on 2020-04-28.
    see the change log