Do I use the birth surname or the adoptive surname?
Try doing a search in the search box above for
adoptive surname and
birth surname or the adoptive surname
as there has been a lot of discussions on this subject and MIGHT be a faster response considering most people are busy with XMAS
Thank you. However I am not talking about searching. When I enter a child’s name, which name should I use in that field? My mother’s name was Jane Doe, and when she was adopted, her surname was changed to Jane Smith. So which name should I write in, such as on the family screen? I personally think it should be the name she was born with, if it is known because that is where her true blood lines are. Then there should be a field provided if she was adopted. She should not be listed as daughter of Joe and Mary Smith because she is not genetically linked to them and their ancestors.
If she was legally adopted, then I assume her legal surname is that of her adoptive parents. I would enter her under that name, and add her birth name as an Alternative Name.
Others may disagree of course!
#nkness was “talking about” searching this discussion group - maybe you misunderstood. This subject comes up regularly.
Yep, I’m one that disagrees. Changing her legal name does not change her genetics. Do you use the same principal for women who change their legal name upon marriage? Probably not.
I generally agree with this but not always. I have a similar example - my Aunt was adopted – “we” did not know (although suspected) this until after my father death. So my Grandfather was not the “birth father” but my Grandmother was. Both her first /given and surname changed legally when adopted my grandfather and occurred a few years after my fathers birth. (~1933), aunt was both in 1920. and Grandparents were married in 1928. Father had (wrongly) assumed they were married years before he was born but always was curious why they never celebrated # year anniversary.
I am not sure I would agree because her adoptive surname would differ from her tree surname. Yes, the adoption was legal and was done by a family member. It does not seem proper to enter her name as a child under her adoptive parents when she was not born to them. So what I am doing is entering her as a child under her biological parents and entering a note in the bio that she was adopted by her mother’s aunt. Then in the aunt’s bio I enter that they adopted a niece’s daughter. They are all in the same tree anyway.
Thought I would give my two pennorth, whether wanted or not!
I always record both surnames and forenames as on birth certificates/records as both can and are changed. On adoption I add adoptive parents to the child and, often, look at their line too, I have many individuals who use different names at different stages at their lives. Some had additional forenames added at baptism, some change their names by deed poll or statutory declaration, some are always known by a middle name which may well be shown on census’ (or censi to you Latin scholars out there!) and, more recently, changes occur when a person changes their gender identity. To me a birth name is the bedrock upon which everything else lies.
I hope 2025 proves fruitful in your reaserches everyone.
I enter women under their own, i.e. birth, names, with their married name as an alternative. If I don’t know a woman’s birth name I leave her surname blank and, again, add her married name as an alternative name. I would never use her married name as the main entry.
In some societies and languages it is not and never was the custom for married women to adopt their husband’s surname.
But this is all a bit irrelevant as the OP was talking about birth and adoptive names, not birth and married names.
My response was regarding your reference to “legal surname” which can apply equally to adoption and marriage, so in respect of the the entry of surnames why would you adopt (sorry for the pun) one method for adoptees and another for married women? I enter both with their birth surname if I have it - otherwise it remains blank.
1 Like
Just adding my 2 cents worth-- 1st there is no right or wrong way to do this–it is actually up to you…
In my opinion, it all depends on the situation and the info you have–so in your case, I would do as you did-- list her under her biological parents, add a note to the child and adoptive parent BUT also add an adoption fact to both–that way if you don’t ( or can’t) print the notes the fact is still listed…
I have a relative who was adopted as a young child from a foreign orphanage–the only info I have is the birth name, date and place–so he is listed under the adoptive parents with a note an adoption fact and his birth name as an alternate fact …
Have a friend who was adopted at one month–when he was a teenager, he accidentally found a copy of his birth certificate with his birth name ( different than his adopted name) and the name of his mother-- as an adult, he decide to contact his biological mother— he loves his adoptive parents and thinks of them as his parents BUT he also loves his mother just as much–so in this case I listed 2 sets of parents with the info listed in the notes and an adoption fact listed on both BUT I left his adoptive name as the primary and his birth name as an alternative-- the only reason, anyone would ever need his birth name is to get the original birth certificate and I doubt anyone would be able to get it—I think the only reason the adoptive parents had it was because the mother gave it to them after she decided she was going to let them adopt her son…
I think the situations may be different for those adopted by family members rather than those outside the family. My mother and her biological mother stayed in contact with each other, and they all got together at family reunions, weddings, birthdays, etc. To us her children, she always referred to her mother as Mother and her adoptive mother (who was actually a great-aunt) as Grandmother Gertie. She was 9 when she was adopted. So all of this was very much in the open.
So in the tree my mother’s biological mother and adoptive mother (actually great-aunt) had the same ancestral lines. So anyone researching the tree would eventually come upon all the three of them sitting on branches next to each other.
I am not sure why they bothered to adopt her as she had been living with them for the past 5 years anyway. I think it was because Gertie had lost her only child when he was 12, and she wanted someone she could call her child.
Karen
I am not using RootsMagic much and have only a small database, mostly to keep track of later generations. I use the name fields like this. Example: When an person is adopted and later is married one or more times:
Ann Huhta adopted Oster later Eriksen later Johnson.
More info in the fields adopted and married.
But if the Surname is blank, doesn’t it make it difficult to determine where that person exists in the tree from a person list? I am a Roots Magic newbie and it masy be I haven’t found the function yet to identify an entry from a Person or Place list. If the function doesn’t exist I feel a Feature Request coming on!
Yes, sometimes the surname field is left blank, which may happen when the wife’s maiden surname is unknown. I put in dashes such as Mary —. Some people enter “unknown.” Ditto with places.
Sometimes a question mark is used such as Mary??? Smith.
You can enter or not enter anything.
Don’t be afraid to leave the surname field blank if you don’t know it. Blank surnames are very telling on where your research is. I don’t put in any space fillers with dashes and questions marks. They can really mess with the quality of hints you receive. Blank means you don’t know the maiden name. Add an married alternate name fact if you need to see how they fit in the index.
2 Likes
When I put in dashes or question marks for the unknown surnames, they show up in the index list at the left, and it serves me well. I noticed some people put married names in the surname field even though the married name is not the maiden name such as Mary Smith, wife of John Smith. I prefer Mary —, wife of John Smith.
Karen