If you know a child is adopted and you know their birth father’s last name, what surname are you using?
For example:
John was adapted by Richard Jones, but his birth father is Carl Mills.
Do you enter him as John Mills?
If I know they are adopted, I have been listing them as John Mills.
Then I list the birth father as the birth parent. I also add there adopted parents for him.
How has anyone else been doing it?
If different, please explain how and why.
Rick
It most cases I would based off Birth certificate and and name at that time – sometimes a corrected birth certificate might apply in. This might also depend on if adoption was private.
if the name was changed at a very young age you want the primary at the adopted name but that is not what I have done. The small handful I have I have used the birth name on birth certificate and the birth parents and the adopted parents (so two sets). In two of the cases, the mother was birth for both and one of the father was only birth and the other was adopted.
As other have noted – there is like no ONE solution for all scenarios
This is not a simple problem with an easy solution, and the issue of names goes way beyond adoption. And it’s more of a “how to do genealogy question” than a “how to use RM” question.
For a real example from my database, what about a family of Greek emigrants to America who all had Greek birth names (using the Greek alphabet of course) and whose names were Anglicized at Ellis Island. I use the Anglicized names. But a family member who has put their data online at Ancestry lists the Anglicized names, then the Greek names in parentheses after the Anglicized names but using the English alphabet rather than the Greek alphabet to spell the original Greek names. I’m sure that violates every genealogical standard in the book, but I think it’s actually quite practical.
For most of my private adoptions, there was an original birth certificate that is sealed and an “adoptive” birth certificate for lack of a better term that has the adopted name. I have an adopted cousin who was able to contact his birth mother when he was in his 50’s and discovered his birth name. But it was his mother’s surname and he still does not know his birth father’s name. Listing his mother’s surname as his primary name makes no sense to me when he has used is adoptive name all his life.
I do have three siblings in my database who were all adopted at the same time and all three of their names were legally changed to their adoptive names. So their birth parents and birth names were all known. They have used their adopted names all their lives since them. So I use those as their primary name and I have their birth names listed in notes.
I just don’t think there is a good way to do it that will always work. There are just too much variety of situations for there to be a one size fits all solution.
That is what I said, “If you know”.
In the case of sealed records, it is not known, and it would make sense to use the adapted name. I also think that a private note should be put in the person file explaining it.
I really think it is the right thing to do, to use the birth father’s name. It defeats the whole purpose of even doing genealogy if you’re not going to put the correct blood lineage and birth name, if you know it.
If you’re not going to do it this way, then you should at least put a private not in the person’s record about it.
This is just my opinion.
Not an easy answer since there are variations on the situation.
Pres. Gerald Ford, Jr comes to mind. Born Leslie King, parents divorced, mother remarried when Leslie was 3 and he took the name Gerald. He was NOT formally adopted by Sr.
Pres. Bill Clinton too was born William Blythe. When he was 7, started going by Clinton and didn’t “formally adopt” the name Bill Clinton. until he was 15. (I don’t know if his stepfather actually legally adopted him)
A stretch but same for married women. Known by 1 name prior to marriage then another afterwards. My mother-in-law was adopted by stepdad when 10, married at 17 so most people in her life only knew her by married name.
My own grandmother was never legally adopted by her parents as an infant and birth parents names unknown. I set her parents as Adopted with a note detailing her events.
Sorry for no singular answer.
As Jerry and Mad Dog said there is no simple answer and I understand what you are saying BUT basically I use the name that the person go by in life and add an alternative name fact as well as a note to their file-- I have a friend who was adopted at 1 month of age-- as he has gotten older , he has reconnected with his birth mother-- he also has his original birth certificate ( his adopted parents had a copy for some reason)- his adopted parents name him John Smith BUT his birth name was James Jones-- I could use either BUT out of respect list the one that he uses as he has known his birth name since he was a teenager and could have changed it at any time…
That’s the difference between ‘family history’ and ‘genealogy’.
My 2nd husband adopted my 4 sons a year after we were married; he gave them the choice of using his surname or their birth father as they were elementary school ages. They chose to take his name. I entered them into RM using his surname but I have two sets of parents: birth & adopted. Yes, the state of Massachusetts automatically changed the birth information making him the father if they obtain a copy of their birth certificates. TO MAKE THINGS WEIRD when I went to the State Archives ”I” was told the birth records were sealed and “I” was not allowed to see them because of the adoption!
I also make sure I enter notes that they were adopted should anyone in the future do DNA work and find out there father ‘was not really XXXX’ creating a wrong impression and/or setting off lots of unnecessary questions!
States / town record can do weird things at times – some records may automatically become public after 100 years ( I found one such example). Good Practice to make notes as DNA might be confusing the DNA might show “half expected” depending