I have a woman that never married but legally adopted a daughter. The
biological parents are unknown but I know that they could be entered as
"another" set of parents with their own marriage record. There is not a
"marriage record" to tie the adopted daughter to her single adopted mother.
If
om..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Taylor
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:28 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
I have a woman that never married but legally adopt
gacy. For now, I
have just indicated in the marriage record notes the detail about this
peculiar "family".
Ron Taylor
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Montgomery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Adopted
Well, I'd either have the "marriage" record setup for her to be linked up to
either an unknown person - or make a fake "no person" person set the
marriage status to NOT MARRIED. and then have the child linked to them
with the child status of adopted. And yeah, I'd add a bunch of notes.
sons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_
From: "Ron Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
To:
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Ron, do you also check "Just leave it blank" instead of "Unknown"?
Options > Customise > Data Format > Word for Blank Records > (Just
leave it blank.)
It works well for Legacy, but add-ons like Legacy Charting Companion
put in "Unknown" if the person field is blank for MRINs.
Cheers
Tracy
Lega
m: "Tracy Skegg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:31:09 +1000
Ron, do you also check "Just leave it blank" instead
Skegg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Ron, do you also check "Just leave it blank" instead of "Unknown"?
Options > Customise > Data Format > Word for Blank Records
On 9/14/07, Ron Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What Legacy needs is a
> flag in the marriage record to indicate that children are connected to only
> one parent and will never be connected to 2 parents because the second
> parent is not unknown but never existed.
Maybe I'm being pedantic but
children's
list) ???
Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Ron Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:28 PM
Subject: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
I have a woman that never married but legally adopted a daughter. The
bio
Computers 'think' in yes/no, on/off, black/white. It
assumes all children listed were born to both parents.
That is why the relationships are given drop down
choices.
Rich in LA CA
--- Pat Hickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Eti
o 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
>
>
> - Original Message -
> Fro
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 adopte
5 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 t
ly important - depending on what you are looking up.
P.S. - to the couple that adopted at age 60 - WOW! More power to them!
- Original Message -
From: TH
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daugh
/
_
> 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 coup
1 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
MAIL 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
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 8:56 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
There are terms for nonbiological relationships: mother, father,
grandmother, grandfather. Where there is a need, these can be
modified with the terms
W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:29:52 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECT
/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: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 0
I am somewhat reluctant to post on this again as I fear it may be
getting off topic. Let me begin by saying if the law thinks that the
terms "mother," "father," "parent," "son," "daughter," and "child" are
adequate to cover adoptive relationships, why is there a problem using
them in genealogy for
m: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 6:29:52 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
>If such relationships are not explicitly stated in a genealogy then
>that geneal
While it may well be true that there is no legal difference now, this is not
true of the past. My mother was adopted and her adoptive mother left a
legacy to both her children. My aunt received hers, but my mother did not
since she was not specifically mentioned in the Will, merely referred to a
o
gacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
But what if someone 100 years from now saw an outline tree and
believed that an adopted child was biological? Would that be the end
of the world? Genealogy is a fascinating hobby, attractive for many
different reasons to some people, of no interest whatsoe
y
> life changing descision?
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> From: Sara Binkley Tarpley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:29:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mot
if it were YOUR son who was using incorrect data to make a
> possibly
> > life changing descision?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message ----
> > From: Sara Binkley Tarpley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> &g
Netherlands, Belgium, and Monaco.
-Original Message-
From: Sara Binkley Tarpley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
I am somewhat reluctant to post on this again as I f
Pat...you are the first respondent that correctly re-phrased the problem.
Thank you.
Ron Taylor
- Original Message -
From: TH
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
You
stein, The
Netherlands, Belgium, and Monaco.
-Original Message-
From: Sara Binkley Tarpley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
I am somewhat reluctant to post on this
Mary [M Brenzel] wrote: "I think it's time to put this discussion to rest."
I agree. People will have various views on this adoption topic so perhaps
this is not the forum for such a discussion. Could we get back to Legacy
and its add-ons and how they work?
Maureen
Legacy User Group
r 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: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:30:22 -0400
nstein, The
Netherlands, Belgium, and Monaco.
-Original Message-
From: Sara Binkley Tarpley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
I am somewhat reluctant to post on thi
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 3:48 am
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
As a Brit, I would like to know in what way the "English Law" (which
btw doesn't
exist) adoptees are treated differently. At one ti
2007 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
> This is an over generalization that is simply not true.
> I can name off the top of my head 10 western european countries
that, > by law, require adoptees be treated differently than others
within > their ad
oup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:20:20 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You'll note that I never used the term "English Law"... however-
>
> There are three specific instances under British
I apologize for making an untrue statement. This is probably the only
list that I am on that is international. To the best of my knowledge,
all U. S. states treat adopted children the same as biological
children.
Sara
On 9/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll note that I
Certainly the Letters Patent determine the path of inheritance and there are
four Scottish Countesses in their own right at the moment since their
Letters Patent specify "heirs of the body". Also, on occasion a special
condition in included such as the Dukedom of Marlborough also allowed
inheritanc
EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Certainly the Letters Patent determine the path of inheritance and there are
four Scottish Countesses in their own right at the moment since their Letters
Patent specify "heirs o
relationships. Hopefully they will remain so!
-Original Message-
From: John Clare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Certainly the Letters Patent determine the p
That sure is a sleeping law related to adoptive children being treated
different,
as it would never happen.
Anne
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, September 20, 2007 18:44
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfami
shown as such.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 4:26 am
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Ok you're not really talking realities here, so no one thought about
the point that the heir t
Royalty can adopt, but, as you say, the adopted child would be treated
differently from the "heir of the body", which is what the discussion was
about. The main differentiation however is that a large number of adoptees
are still alive, certainly in England, who were born under the old system.
They
Well I am talking realistically while you are talking theoretically,
your scenario would never happen.
Anne
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
The reality i
How many heirs to the thrones in Europe have adopted?
Anne
- Original Message -
From: John Clare
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Royalty can adopt, but, as you say
children would.
Anne
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Easy- No adoptee can ever inherit the crown. If that isn't treating
adoptees different from biological
re the law
requires that some adopted children be treated differently.
-Original Message-
From: Anne Hildrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:44 am
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
How many heirs to the t
Greetings:
Changing the direction a wee bit...
If the time is prior to 1926, when adoption was formally legalized in
England... how would one enter in the daughter of one of the parents, and
who was not necessarily related to the other parent? The biological father
is not known, but the parentin
rGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:41 am
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
So what, there would never be any adopted child in the family of the
heir to the crown.
So your total unrealistic point, isn't such a good point regarding how
to treat adopted
children as
d See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:00:41 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
Greetings:
Changing the directi
Hi Jim,
She'd be entered as Jane SMITH with an AKA as Jane JONES
I'd enter her with two sets of parents. Her mother and unknown father
and her mother and Charles JONES.
I'd enter parent-child relationships showing Charles as step-father.
That's what he would have been if the first relationship
He would be entered as a Step-Parent
On 9/21/07, Jim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> Changing the direction a wee bit...
>
> If the time is prior to 1926, when adoption was formally legalized in
> England... how would one enter in the daughter of one of the parents, and
> who
Thanks all for advice.
Jim
On 9/21/07, Cathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Jim Smith
> Tampa, FL 33624
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfam
Phil Hawkins wrote: "What has this to do with Legacy???"
Absolutely nothing Phil, from what I can tell. At the risk of becoming a
complete bore, can we *please* stick to discussions about Legacy and the
add-ons?
Maureen
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/
John Clare wrote:
Royalty can adopt, but, as you say, the adopted child would be treated
differently from the "heir of the body", which is what the discussion
was about. The main differentiation however is that a large number of
adoptees are still alive, certainly in England, who were born un
I want to make clear that I admitted that it was an error as regards
the European countries named, about whose adoption laws I know
nothing. And I certainly was not considering monarchies or titles.
As far as I know, all US states currently treat adoptees the same as
biological children.
Sara
On
Sara,
With regard to the US adoptions, I believe it to be as you have stated.
-Original Message-
From: Sara Binkley Tarpley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 7:38 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
57 matches
Mail list logo
