Dear Amy: My sister and I are the family historians.Hmm, what do you think about the advice? I'd give Amy big points for acknowledging that adopted children actually have lives before they joined their adoptive families, something that not even all adoptive parents seem to get. . . .
While getting all of my other siblings' information about their children, I was asked if I would put the adopted children down as children born to the family. I said I would add them, but not as born to the couple. This has caused a real problem.
Am I right (I would add them as adopted and the year in which they entered the family unit)? I'll stand by your answer.— Family Historian
Dear Historian: I solicited opinions from several different family historians and received opinions across a wide spectrum.
You don't say exactly what sort of family history you are pulling together.
My own view is that you should include all children in your family as children in your family, no matter the circumstances of their birth.
For you to do otherwise, and to note the date of their entry into the family but not their actual birth date makes it seem that on the one hand you are denoting them as not quite "real" and on the other hand you are implying that their lives started not on the dates of their birth but on the date they entered the family.
Include all children of the family in your family tree. If you are compiling a "key" or narrative to accompany the family tree you can note adoption dates, etc.
You want to tell as complete a story as possible, but adopted children are "real" family members and your history should acknowledge this reality.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
How should adopted kids be included in family history?
That's the question for advice columnist Amy: