There is no way that the couple should be regarded as grandparents of
the offspring of the adopted child-period. They should be regarded as
the adoptive grandparents.
I've said it once and I'll say it again...
family historians need to get their own terms for non-biological
relationships and stop usurping strict genealogical terms for use in
describing non-biological relationships. Then, and only then, will the
confusion cease.
-----Original Message-----
From: ronald ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 5:11 pm
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Whilst strictly genealogically speaking that is accurate, I am sure
that the
adoptive parents would be delighted to know that future children of the
adopted
child would not be regarded as their grandchild even though it has
their name.
Ron Ferguson
_____________________________________________________________________
For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries*
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_____________________________________________________________________
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:30:16 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, the wording needs to be changed to "This couple had no
descendants". Then a note added about the adopted child would suffice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sara Binkley Tarpley
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Ahh, but this couple did have a child. They just didn't have any
biological children. How do you think the adopted child would feel to
see that his parents had no children? Furthermore, legally it would
be incorrect to say that the couple had no children.
I show that our adopted child is adopted in the child status, but I
would be very upset if there were an "A" next to his name in the list
of our children.
Sara
On 9/18/07, Pat Hickin wrote:
I'm late getting involved in this discussion -- sorry!! -- got
behind.
This discussion makes me wonder about the following situation:
A married couple named Smith had no children. And so in the marriage
info
screen you click that button.
That shows they have no (known, acknowledged) )bloodline descendants.
When they are in their sixties they adopt a son (unrelated).
So in the Legacy family view children list it says, "**[This couple]
Had no
children.**"
Then you add the adopted son.
Withouy even asking, Legacy drops the "**[This couple] Had no
children.**"
entry and puts in the adopted son info.
Why can't both appear in the children list:
the "**Had no children.**" AND
''John Doe SMITH" (with his status marked as Adopted-- and maybe an
"A"
appearing in in the blank space to the left of his name in the
children's
list) ???
Pat
_________________________________________________________________
100’s of Music vouchers to be won with MSN Music
https://www.musicmashup.co.uk
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
