Tags : :
I read a great post yesterday on a blog called Climbing Greenwood. It was on the Monday Morning Mentions.
Leslie's question "Can adoption and genealogy mix?" seems pretty straightforward. Adopted children are not part of the blood line. Therefore, technically, they are not family.
However, my husband is adopted. On the 1960 census, he will show up as a son along with his two younger brothers who are the biological children of his adoptive parents. There is no record to show he was adopted other than a slight difference. In California, the adoptive birth records are kept in a different location.
His parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents were part of his life. Their history is his history. Future generations will also understand that these people were his family. In Leslie's family, her adoptive children are from another country. It is more obvious but again, while the girls may want to know their bloodlines, it is more likely they will learn the adoptive family's stories They will interact with their cousins. They will spend time at grandma's. Their birth certificates will also show them as the children of their parents.
Where do the Genealogist's stand on this issue? I have not seen much discussion. I have tracked my husband's family a very long way back. He is not related to anyone on his father's side and yet, he carries his name. My grandson, who we adopted, is not related to my husband but he is also a Hinds. The name carries down. I can see the look of horror on the faces of some Genealogists. Had we not spent the time to document all of this, the only way to know that the bloodline has changed would be with DNA.
I would be interested in hearing what other people think.