what about a still born child?

Question

what is protocol for listing a child that was still born and where burial records are known!?!

Comments

If there is a record it is best to hang it on a profile.  This way that record is done and dusted and confusion in the future will be minimized with that entry out of the way. It also explains why the mother didn't have another child of that same age (unless she had twins of course but it still helps).  :)

---

Makes sense, Enzo.

---

My Granddaughter was Stillborn and she is in my Family Tree, Though we never got to know her as a Living Child, She is Part of Our Family and Our Hearts and She Always Will be. She is buried in the same Cemetery as my Oldest Son. I think it is important to add ALL Family Members, Especially when we have so many people Researching and Sourcing Cemeteries.

Answer 1

I don't see anything wrong with recording that.

Answer 2

The child should definitely have his/her own profile with the birth and death information.

Answer 3

Technically, I think they were never born, since they died before birth. But if you want to include them, you can treat them as a child that died the same day they were born and clarify in the narrative that they were still born.

Comments

A stillborn child is technically born, most definitely. There is no telling how long before birth they died, but any parent of a stillborn child will say that the child was considered a family member even though the child never lived  outside the mother's body.

---

A few articles and discussions on this interesting topic.

http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/Now-What-Researching-a-Stillborn-Infant

https://tech.lds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7945

http://www.familytreeforum.com/content.php/374-Stillbirth

http://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/3795/how-to-record-a-stillbirth-as-a-genealogical-event

---

Yeah, I retract my "technically not born" comment. I don't think there is a single widely agreed upon technical definition and, if there was, I'm not sure it would be relevant. Interesting, though, that the date of death might be before the date of birth.

Almost all of the genealogy I do is pre-1900. I'm not sure I've ever encountered a record referring to a stillborn child, although it's quite possible that they were recorded as being born and dying the same day. Basically, if there was info about a child, I would include it.

Re the original question - The existence of burial records is pretty irrelevant. If date/place of burial is not known, there is no problem with not having them.

---

Chase - I think the (English Law) might have changed because I know ancestors that had some still born and they were never 'born' just removed. It was classed (so they told me) that if the child took a breath then they were born and could be buried otherwise it was like they had never been born. No Registration - where as if the child was born if only for a brief time , a birth certificate and death certificate were needed