Genealogy & Family History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for expert genealogists and people interested in genealogy or family history. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Mildner couple in my tree became foster parents of a young girl in the early 1900s. In 1912, they were sued by the birth mother of the girl for custody, but the judge ruled that the girl could stay with the foster family, after which she was apparently adopted by the family. The adoption was reflected in the change of the girl's last name between the 1910 and the 1920 (and later) censuses.

I had recorded the Mildners as foster parents of the girl. Now if I change the relationship as "adopted" I will lose the foster state. Is there a good way of dealing with this situation other than through extensive notes? doesn't seem to provide a way to record date ranges with relationships, and only allows one set of relationships between a parent and a child.

In a comment to a question about names, Jane recommends creating explicit name change records. How would one do that with

share|improve this question
I don't have the expertise with trees to know how to approach this, but wonder if that limitation should be part of the question title. – GeneJ Oct 17 '12 at 19:01
edited title. Better? – Gene Golovchinsky Oct 17 '12 at 19:58
Yes. TY for the edit. – GeneJ Oct 17 '12 at 20:18
up vote 4 down vote accepted

If I were using, I would add a fact to the individual and choose "Custom Event" to create a name change event. I think your options are limited to this plus extensive note-making.

The software package I use allows the creation or multiple sets of parents for an individual, with the type of relationship recorded (adopted, birth, step, fostered, illegitimate and so on), so it's capable of recording the messiness of the lives of real people, to quote @Fortiter. I supplement it with extensive notes, and will be adopting JaneT's suggestion of custom name change events where appropriate.

Unlike @acproctor here, I don't limit myself to recording strict biological descent, but that may be because I'm doing Family History research and he may be doing Genealogy.

share|improve this answer
1 does allow multiple parents, but doesn't allow multiple relationships between the same set of people. So you can have birth, foster, and adopted parents, as long as they are different individuals. I will look into creating a custom event. That seems like a good way to go. – Gene Golovchinsky Oct 17 '12 at 18:03

This is a good question but the answer - as with many questions - probably depends on the software you use, or indeed whether you use any at all.

I took the approach that parents (as in the up-links in my data) could only be the biological ones. These were the only unambiguous persons I could refer to. Every person has just one progenitive father and mother, even if they're not yet identified. Hence, every Person entity in my data has just two potential up-links.

I also have several cases of fostering and adoption - including when one relationship was legally changed to the other - and guardians (for want of another word) at a time before fostering and adoption became formalised. I still represent these non-biological relationships but in a different way, using 'roles'. Roles relate to the part a person played in a given event (e.g. census night), and can vary with time.

You might be asking why I don't simply have alternative types of up-link, e.g, one for biological, one for adoptive, etc., and there may be products that do it this way. Well, validation was one criterion. There can only be two potential biological parents (one M, one F), and they are always the biological parents (no time limit), and there can never be any linkage loops for biological lineage. All other types of relationship, including adoptive/fostering/guardian but also extending to generalised non-blood relations, have no such rules.

share|improve this answer
If we adopt a ultra-strict definition of "parents", then you are linking to a birth mother and a person she publicly nominated as the father. In some families, that second link has no genetic basis and in practice is a fluid as any fostering arrangement. Family historians need to balance the (undoubted) advantages of strict data modelling against the messiness of the lives of real people. – Fortiter Oct 15 '12 at 2:12

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.