Adoption and DNA - Adopted or Birth family for the profile.

Question

I read the info on listing adopted persons and having to chose either the adoptive or birth family for the profile. However, DNA testing is going to make that a problem. I have created my daughters profiles. We have all been DNA tested - but they are adopted and not genetically related to me or my husband, and there is no way to indicate that currently other than in the bio. We do not know who their birthparents are so listing them is not an option, and even if it was, it would negate our family. From the perspective of an open adoptive family, or adult adoptee who has done a family search, having to chose, because that's the way the software was built, does not feel very warm and fuzzy. A lot of adoptees do DNA testing as a method of finding birth relatives - but Wiki would require them to esentially divorce one family or the other.

Since I'm not a coder, I have no idea how difficult it would be to add an adoption check off that would lead to a second family tree, but I'd like it considered. Also there was  a fair amount of informal adoption in the past, with kids showing up in the hosueholds of grandparents or other relatives, no way to indicate that either other than in text. Given that World Connect is not based on bloodlines, but any family connection, maybe it's time to think about making Wiki friendlier to adoptees

Comments

Legally, through adoption a legal relationship is created ONLY between the adoptee  and the adopting parents. Thus, an adoptee cannot pretend to inherit automatically from adoptive grandparents, uncle, aunts, siblings, etc. Adoption does not create a legal (or any other kind of) relationship between the adoptee and the ancestors of the adoptive parents. At genealogical and genetic sites, I as an adoptee only wish to be shown as related to my birth family. Anything else would be a travesty, it seems to me. These sites are about factual bloodlines , as far as can be determined. To deliberately falsify them with persons known not to be descendants of the ancestors in question is  misleading to others, researching their family history. Emotional ties are not made, nor broken by genealogical and dna sites. It seems to me, that only adoptive parents and children who are insecure about their feelings towards one another, would try to force themselves into a family tree chart indicating a non-existing ancestral connexion. The fact is, that blood is blood, feelings are feelings, and the two do not always go hand in hand. What we adoptees need is the freedom to explore without guilt our true genealogical origins, without being tied down to a falsified version of our family history. The feelings of the adopting parents need to be separated from - not projected onto - the adoptees. My adoptive parents - who were very abusive towards me - are long dead. Luckily i had the emotional distance needed to search for and accept the facts of my birth and eventually to reconnect to and identify with my birth family. For those adoptees whose adoptive parents were kind, or who are still living, the feelings of false guilt and disloyalty often hinder them from even thinking about their true identity, let alone go out and seek it. I should hope that adoptive parents, those who truly love their adoptive children and are not merely possessive of them, will encourage rather than hinder their children to feel free to seek the truth about their biological identity and ancestral past. Believe me, one known true reality - no matter how difficult - is much easier to deal with psychologically, than a thousand fantastical possibilites that constantly roll around in one's head, but which one dares not express, explore or act upon, for fear of displeasing adoptive parents and society.

---

I wish there was a "like button" to click for this answer.

Not only do I whole heartedly agree with your post, I would like to point out that if this tree were to accurately record the history of each individual it would be invaluable for adoptee activists seeking to change the laws in their locales to allow them to see all documents in their adoption files.

It would also clearly illustrate the dual truth of adoption: In order for adoptive parents to obtain a child, a family must be destroyed.

Granted, the family of origin might be poor, disfunctional or include some black sheep...but it is still the natural family and that is from whence the adoptee's DNA and medical predispositions originate.

---

Adoption always makes life interesting! I'm an adoptee; my husband and I also adopted three children to complete our family. So, our family is impacted by adoption in more ways than one. I wouldn't change it for the world!

That said, when I first joined WikiTree, I signed in with my maiden name (Janet Lynn Bosch) which was the my adoptive family gave me when the legal formalities were completed. However, I soon learned that I couldn't track both families -- the one I identify with as "my" family and the one who shares my biological profile who for most of my life have been unknown to me. So, I decided it was the logical thing to trace my biological family since my DNA was in no way connected to my adoptive family.

It's confusing, however, because my profile name is Bosch-460 based on my adoptive family, but I'm actually tracing my bio family. My birth name is Mary Louise Stockwell and the Stockwell and Dugger families are the focus of my search. 

So, my question:  Is there a way to change my profile name to reflect my search? 

My husband and I have done quite a bit of research and have traced my adoptive family back centuries in the Netherlands and there's rich history there that saddens me to think is not really in my DNA. But, as I research my bio family, I'm finding there are amazing finds along those lines as well. Learning to adjust my focus and learn who contributed to my DNA has been a bit challenging at times, if not utterly confusing. Sometimes I have to stop and remember who I am. It almost makes me feel apologetic to claim adoptive family members as "family" when my focus of late has been so intense on my bio family. Switching gears isn't all that easy at times.

Anyway, as to this discussion, I totally agree that if there were a way to include the adoptive family in the search, it would be a wonderful tribute to them. Sadly, however, it wouldn't impact the genealogical search more than fulfilling curiosity about our adoptive parents' origin while honoring their unique role in the adoptee's life. My blessing has been that, even though not all my bio family have been exemplary citizens of whom one could be proud or even want to claim, learning about my roots has explained why I'm so different than my adoptive family, not just in physical traits, but in many other ways as well. Like most adoptees, I always felt a bit different than my adoptive family, like I was the square peg trying to fit into a round hole. Learning my biological background and the people who contributed to my DNA has opened my eyes and finally made me feel like I am a perfectly formed piece of the overall family puzzle, fitting in just as God intended.

Adoptees are blessed ... they have the benefit of a family who chose to raise them as one of their very own, instilling in them a rich array of family culture and values. All the while, they carry this treasure inside that unlocks the key to who they are, why they are and what makes them so utterly unique yet an integral part of a beautiful portrait of family bound by blood. Whether the adoptive experience was good or bad, whether the newly found bio family is commendable or not truly makes no difference. We are who we are because of what we've done with the gifts we've been given both biologically and legally through adoption. In other words, we've been granted an uncommon opportunity to lead our own children and grandchildren according to a dual heritage, taking the best of both families to pass down to those who will carry on both the biological makeup combined with the adoptive name to future generations.

---

When i told an acquaintance, that i was interested in meeting my natural father (after i had already been reconnected to my birth mother's familiy), he warned me that ''you might find out that your father was an axe-murderer''! Why do people so often presume that adoptees are the children of monsters? Most adoptees, including myself, have rather average birth parents, whose only ''fault'' was that they had temporary or longer-lasting problem, which made adopting out their child seem the best solution. I told that acquaintance, that it did not matter to me, whether my father did turn out to be an axe-murderer: better one true answer, than a million unsolved questions in my head. As for black sheep, my adoptive family had even more black sheep than my natural family. That's life. One of my half-brothers, who was also adopted out, and is still angry about that with our deceased mother, whom we never met, was very happy to be reunited with our birth brothers, aunts, cousins, nephews and nieces. And he has never thought to divorce himself from our ancestors: they, after all, had nothing to do with our being adopted out! For an adoptee to divorce himself from his natural ancestry, is to do violence to oneself, after all. It is through that chain of blood ancestors, and only them, that we have received life. Which is why i am convinced that WikiTree, being a science-based site, based, that is upon genealogy and genetics, should follow scientific method, not sentimentality. An adoptee (whether he knows who his natural parents were, or not), who wishes to show a relationship to his adoptive parents or guardians, can (and should only do so) in the biography, so that genealogical misunderstandings not occur. It is so simple to do: AB, born in 1960, is the adoptive son of X and Y (with links to their profiles, if they have profiles). That leaves the adoptee free to link up or not, to his natural parents and their whole genealogy. It happened to me recently, that a WikiTree genealogist posted that she was also descended from an ancestor of mine. We would be about Sixth Cousins. I checked Relationship Finder to see to what degree and through what lines the two of us were descended from that ancestor, and thus related by blood. To my surprise, WikiTree Relationship Finder did not find the connexion. It did say that we were related as 16th Cousins, being descended from some totally other person. It turned out that the Cousin in question was connected under her normal profile to her adoptive parents and their ancestors, not to her own ancestors. Therefore our true 6th Cousin relationship could not be found; but a false 16th Cousin Relationship was found. This is not right. Also, how many adoptive parents might be confusing DNA proofs by posting their linked adoptive children's DNA results as if they were their biological children? Those DNA results will appear at many ancestral profiles for up to 6 generations, causing researchers to waste hours, months or even years of time and effort looking for what is wrong in their own genealogy and DNA test results, when in fact, the only thing wrong is the false genealogical and genetic relationship caused by one adoptee's being connected to a tree that is not his own. I hope that WikiTree will remain faithful to its main purpose, for nobody and nothing in this world - not even WikiTree! - can be all things to all men, and still fulfill its own purpose.

---

You can change your LNAB (last name at birth) at WikiTree: I did! I changed my LNAB from ''DeFriest Macnamara'' (my natural father's surname) to ''Fuller'', which was my mother's maiden name. I then added my natural father's surname as ''Current name''. I did that because it reflected the reality of things better: my mother was not married to my natural father, so his surname was in fact NOT my LNAB. So now my name at WikiTree looks like this: Albertus (Fuller) de Friest Macnamara. I have never used my adoptive surname at a DNA or genealogy site. In a word, it is very much possible to change one's LNAB at WikiTree.

---

Jennifer,

I agree completely that there should be some formal annotation for adoption. Many people are concerned with biological bloodlines to track incidences of hereditary diseases, for instance. So it's definitely important to have some sort of field to track biological parents. Maybe they can modify the Wiki software to allow a person to have multiple sets of parents -- biological and adopted. If one really thinks about it, a person who is adopted inherits something in a very metaphysical sense from his or her non-biological 'ancestors' since those people made the adoptive parents who they are. Nature vs. nurture and all that.

Another thing that will prove a fly in the ointment is that it's now possible for someone to have three biological parents -- a mother and father for the nuclear DNA, and another woman to contribute mitochondrial DNA. How will genealogy software handle this eventuality?

- Victor

Answer 1

I think it's a sad reality of orphaned children with no known parents that they also have to face this brick wall of genealogy so recently in their past.  But genealogy is really about biological heritage and to just go around a brickwall so easily might not be the best idea.  Everyone eventually will get to a point where tracing their ancestors is impossible, so in a way everyone is sort of an orphan.

Answer 2

Hi Jennifer,

For reference, the existing policy and recommendations: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Adoptions_and_multiple_parents

Have you considered the second profile idea?

Chris

Answer 3

Yep, I read the policy, which is what triggered my question. It seems that it should be possible to give an adoptive/step person the ability to link to both of their heritages. Right now they are esentially required to disown one family.

Comments

Jennifer-- just curious: have you found any other genealogy software that supports two sets of parents? I never have.

What is it about linking to one of the families from the narrative that feels disowning? I could imagine for example making a really nice intro section that honors the other family-- whichever direction you go.

Perhaps there are others here who could point us to some examples ?

---

I'm adopted, and I've chosen the route of building a tree for my biological parents, even though they were in no sense my "family." And yes, even though it's only pixels (and they're conveying information that's technically true), it felt a little disloyal to not connect to my adoptive parents. I love them, and consider them my actual family.

But since that's not what genealogy is about, I dealt with my pangs of sadness and made the call to go with biology.

I linked to my adoptive Dad's profile in my own profile (my adoptive Mom's history is more complicated, and I'm still working on that), with a paragraph explaining our relationship. You won't see my Mom and Dad on my tree, in other words, but you will in my profile.

I honestly don't see how a tree would handle two sets of parents simultaneously. One tree is unwieldy enough, past a couple generations. But I understand the desire completely.

---

Actually, since this initially came up, I discovered that WeRelate.org (another genie wiki) has addressed this issue.

They have a separate field called Adoption. In it they put a template that creates a link to the adoptive parents (or child). See:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate:Suggestions/Assertions#Indicating_Adoption

which also includes a link to examples for both children and parents.

I don't know if Wikitree can make that kind of change (to have a separate field), but maybe there's a way to use templates to create a better display of adopted parents.

---

I think Michelle Hartley is/was working on a template just for that.  I'll send her the link to this thread.

---

In answer to Jillaine's question "just curious: have you found any other genealogy software that supports two sets of parents?"

Family Tree Maker does allow for this. You can set parents as biological, adopted. step, foster, related, guardian, private or unknown. I imagine you can use as many of these as you like, but you do have to set one as the 'Preferred' parent. I use this for my older brother, listing both his bio father and the father who raised us. If I want to print up a family tree I set our Dad as preferred, but if I want the genetic tree I set the bio dad as preferred.

Something like this would be great on WikiTree, but in the absence I agree with the biological parent 'rule'.

---

Ancestry offers and adoption option. I have just about stopped updating my tree on Wiki due to this rule. I understand the biology factor and DNA, but the rule makes me feel very left out - and that has nothing to do with insecurity over my adoption.

One person posted they had a horrible family whom they were adopted into. That explains their standpoint. For me, my horrible experience was in meeting my biological family. So Wikitree essentially closes the door on me. I am going to update notes on every person in my tree alerting everyone who stumbles past that it is inaccurate according to the requirements of the site.

Also, MyHeritage acknowledges adoption. I don't think it is a software issue - I think it is a DNA issue. Wiki only wants blood relations. I thought my input here was valuable. Clearly I was incorrect.

---

Andrea, I'm pretty certain I've read elsewhere that for living people (such as yourself), you can choose to place your adoptive parents in the father and mother fields. Can a staff member / Leader confirm or deny this please?

---

That's my understanding also. It's just a good idea on your profile, when you link it to your adoptive parents, that you have a note indicating that your relationship is through adoption.

---

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Adoptions_and_multiple_parents

"One Set of Parents

WikiTree only allows a person to have one mother and one father. This provides the basic structure for family trees.

This means that with adoptions, step-children, etc., a choice needs to be made.

For private profiles with direct connections to living people, the family can choose which parents to include. Note that if the adoptive parents are used, DNA tests should not be added for the adopted children.

For public profiles without connections to living people, genetic connections should prevail. This is a choice the WikiTree community has made: our tree should be genetic.

For example, if you were adopted you can choose to enter your adoptive or biological parents as your mother and father. If your great grandfather was adopted, you should use his biological parents, if or when they are known. "

Andrea, there is no reason you should feel left out at all. You have the right to choose to list your adoptive family over your biological family per WikiTree rules as long as you do not add your DNA test results  to your profile. That is not, or at least should not be, so difficult given your situation and feelings.

I would hope that you would add a note in your biography section that you were adopted, but even for this you are not required to identify your biological parents.

As for this statement:

 "I am going to update notes on every person in my tree alerting everyone who stumbles past that it is inaccurate according to the requirements of the site."

Please remember : "WikiTree profiles are not owned by profile managers." {see http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Ownership_and_control}

While you may, if you so choose, add the note you suggest to your own profile page it would not be within WikiTree guidelines to post it on other profile pages, even those linked to yours as family members. Besides which, would it even be necessary if you choose to link to your adoptive family?

---

As Andrea Steed has said, MyHeritage (specifically the Family Tree Builder software) allows a person to have up to three sets of parents: biological parents, adoptive parents, and foster parents. Links to adoptive parents are displayed differently from links to natural parents. (I've not created any foster parents in the software, so I'm not sure how that set-up works.)

---

A year late, here's a proposal: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/185520/biological-relationship-status-improve-handling-adoptions

Answer 4

I agree with your thought about somehow allowing two trees.  I've created the http://www.DNAAdoption.com web site to help those working in DNA and adoption.  Particularly as DNA spreads out more and more, it is important to have a clear blood line for DNA along with the just as important family line built out.  People are a product of both their upbringing as well as their DNA, so having one person choose both is very helpful.  I hope this is something that can be adressed in the future.

Answer 5

Hello Jennifer, I am an adult adoptee and I assure you that from the adoptee's point of view WikiTree is ALREADY as friendly as it should be. I was born into the world by a woman, therefore I have a mother. To become pregnant my mother had sex which fertilized an ovum, therefore I have a father. A (1)mother and A(1) father is all that it took to create me out of nothing. That's all I need on my pedigree. Discussion of who else to "include in the family" is all about allowing other people to have their way in spite of very real facts that they want to contradict with an invented reality. That doesn't do anything to assist the adoptee in finding a way to live with his or her reality and true story...at least it never did for me. For the first 29 years of my life I simply didn't know who my parents were. Correct that. For the first 18 years of life I didn't know who my parents were, then my adopted mother showed me my original birth certificate which gave me a name. But then she added, "You don't want to find her, do you?". Not being a fool, I knew what THAT statement was supposed to say because I learned the code many years before. I didn't say that I was looking, I simply announced when I found.

Comments

Michelle, I too am an adoptee. You have put it very eloquently. Thank you. I am not so eloquent. I was told over and over again by my adoptive parents how bad my origins were (though all the details of the story of what happend, which they told me just once, later turned out to be false, esp. that my birth parents had died when i was 6 weeks old in a car crash!). The irony of it is, my adoptive parents were both alcoholic and very abusive, morally worse persons than my natural mother who was also alcoholic but not abusive (she had been abandoned by her husband, and was poor, which is why she gave up four of her seven children for adoption). My adoptive parents often reminded me how thankful i should be towards them for taking me from the orphanage, and yet at other times they told me that i could always go back to the orphanage if i didn't like their lifestyle, ''because you are not truly ours''. Their two natural children, they added ''have to stay here, because they are ours''. Unfortunately, I only found out where the orphanage was when i was 44 years old. When growing up, i was forbidden - both by subtle and more explicit remarks - to be at all interested in my natural parents and true origins. I was told that the records were sealed forever, and i would never find out anything anyway. I left home at age 16 and entered a monastery, later a seminary, and later still became employed in vairous secular jobs. My adoptive parents died when i was in my early twenties. I was contacted by four of my birth brothers in July 1998, and flew to the USA to meet them. Together we found our two youngest birth brothers, who had been adopted out together. On 15 August 1998 the seven of us all got together for the very first time. Our mother had already passed away in 1991. But i did meet two welcoming aunts, several wonderful cousins and nephews and nieces. I began researching the family tree immediately, and it has become my passion. I cannot begin to explain how meeting my birth family and finding our where i come from has fulfilled a deep bottomless pit within me, and given me a sense of reality, belonging and safety, that i never knew before. We adoptees need self-knowledge right from the beginning, without having to depend upon the lies, half-truths and emptiness imposed upon us by agencies, adoptive parents, and state laws. If anyone feels offended by this, that is unfortunate: they should feel offended and sorry for me, for my three other brothers who were adopted out, (for my three eldest brothers who never knew of us), that we were cut off from all self-knowledge and family ties for over forty years, forbidden to seek out any meaningful information, until by luck we happened to find each other. I know that our mother is smiling down upon us from Heaven, happy that we have found one another, and that I am researching our family tree and DNA. WikiTree, please let me keep to the one truth that i have been born upon this earth from two natural parents who descend from millions of ancestors, otherwise, if this truth is compromised, then i am again left with the feeling that i have no valid connexion to mankind, no right to be on this earth at all.       

Thank you, Albertus

---

Don't sell yourself short, Bert. Your writing skills are above par and eloquent in their own right.

---

Thanks, Michelle!

---

...I assure you that from the adoptee's point of view....

I am also an adult adoptee. Please don't try speaking from the point of view of all adoptees.

---

I only speak for those of us who figured out where babies come from, how they are made, and who was involved in the process. It took me until the age of 7 before I realized that "adopted" is code for I don't live with people who are my family.

Obviously, that epiphany is not a universal experience.

---

I find this reply extremely rude and obnoxious.

 

Surely you are not discrediting the feelings adoptees who feel their adoption was the best thing ever for them...?

 

I feel you are implying that If I don't agree with you then I must not understand how babies are made.

---

I'm very sorry that your feelings over ride fact.

I find it rude and obnoxious that your post projects an opinion unsupportable by fact so your argument becomes that I implied something of your conjecture. I don't like other people trying to put words in my mouth. I am capable of coming up with my own ideas and the words to express them.

Certainly, there are a number of children who must be removed from their families due to abuse or neglect. We have neighbors who have adopted a sibling group that was removed from an unhealthy environment. No doubt the children will develop strong emotional ties with the people who rescued them from drug abusing neglectful parents. Those emotions do not change the fact that they share DNA with their siblings but NOT with either of their adoptive parents. Like it or not, they also share DNA with the parents who were irresponsible and neglected them.

Notice the period at the end of the sentence. It indicates that is the end of that thought. Anything you have to project onto it is of your own invention and does not change the science one iota.

There is nothing wrong with creating a robust narrative in the text block describing the relationship with the adoptive parents and singing their praises. Put hyperlink markup around their names so the reader only has to click the mouse to go directly to each adoptive parent's profile. But don't pretend that the county judge waved a magic wand and changed your cellular makeup during the adoption proceedings. He or she didn't because he or she COULDN'T do that. You have a mother and a father. They are the ones that gave you the color of your hair and eyes, the shape if your nose and fingers, the vocal cords that create the sound of your voice. You will carry their life giving contributions inside your body for your entire life whether you know them or not, whether you live with them or not, whether the genes are healthy or susceptible to disease. And do not discount the amount of your personality that is hard wired by genetics. There are quite a few studies of twins seperated at birth who meet as adults and are astonished to find that despite dissimilar households and parenting styles the twins developed into people with eerily similar tastes, interests, life views and personality styles. I have experienced that phenomena with my own reunion. It was and still is a great relief to know that there is nothing wrong with me for having different ideas, interests and tastes than my adoptive parents. I fit my biological family like puzzle pieces. That just didn't happen in my adoptive family. So my parents adopted me back. I've come full circle. And nothing has changed with my adopted mother. She still doesn't "get" me and still thinks that at age 52, if only she harps on me enough I will become just like her. Not likely.

---

Hi guys,

Adoption is personal for every individual who has experience with it. Let's try to keep that in mind here. There are no blanket statements for how someone who is adopted might feel or how they might think about it.  It's a different experience for all of us.  It doesn't make one person right and one person wrong but let's respect that we aren't all going to have the same feelings about it.  Thanks!

---

Exactly! That is why the personal narrative in the text block of the profile is free form and is the place to be creative.

Answer 6

Wikitree software supports the idea of two kinds of families, Connected and Biological, which correspond to Connection Finder and Relative Finder, respectively.

The reason for having a Mission Statement and Honor Code is to ensure that we, the developers and users are all on the same page. When making decisions as to how to proceed, we should both consult the mission statement and honor code for answers.

The Mission Statement is

"Our mission is to connect the human family on one tree that's free and accessible to everyone."

This means given a choice to be on Relative Finder or Connection Finder, we choose Connection Finder. Just as there is no Biological Connection between Spouses, there is no Biological connection between Adoptees and Parents but they appear as connected. Given the current implementation, the parent should be the Connected Parent.

The top priority in the Honor Code is

"We collaborate. When we share ancestors we work together on the same ancestor profiles."

*This means we do not create separate profiles.

The next Honor Code priority is.

2. We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.

*This means we enter all the DNA tests for everyone we have obtained permission.

Using the current system, Adoptees should add "Adopted" to the DNA notes.

The Developers should presume that this is what the users are going to do and design the system to support this.

There seems to be some implication by the way Wikitree presents information. Users seem to presume that the name of a  DNA tester on a profile supports the relationship between a parent and child. It does not. In the current implementation, it merely a statement of fact indicating that this DNA Tester is connected. It's presence on the profile is not in itself evidence.

We should presume that some DNA test comparisons may result in "NO Relation".

In these cases,  there is no way to narrow down where the connection is not biological, except in the case of parent/child relationship. We should anticipate these types of connections may take years to resolve.

Personally, I would rather know about the DNA comparisons that indicate some problem, than to know about the DNA comparisons that indicate the tree was correct all along.

edit:

This also means that I believe the help on the Adoptions and Multiple Parents page contains an error because it contradicts the Honor Code.

Specifically...

For private profiles with direct connections to living people, the family can choose which parents to include. Note that if the adoptive parents are used, [all] DNA tests should not be added, [even] for the adopted children.

The words in [] should be added.

The context in which the text should be stated is from the profile of the profile being updated.  

Comments

Ken, trying to follow all the points you are making.

For the Adoptions and Multiple Parents page, aren't you mis-quoting the text? The actual text reads: "Note that if the adoptive parents are used, DNA tests should not be added for the adopted children."

You state: "Note that if the adoptive parents are used,[all] DNA tests should be added, [even] for the adopted children."

The actual text does not contradict the Honor Code, it prevents inaccurate DNA information from propagating up the lineage of the adoptive parents if the individual chooses to link to them rather than their biological parents. Hopefully the individual would also note that they were adopted so that future researchers would know that the genetic line stops there. If they also chose to note the identities of their biological parents in the biography section it would be great, but it is not currently required by anything I understand of WikiTree guidelines, nor should it be in my opinion..

If the adopted individual chooses to link to their biological parents, they should also add their DNA if they have taken any tests so that the genetic lineage propagates up the line correctly. It would also be hoped that they add the information to their biograpy section about their adoption and their adoptive family members, with links there, if they desire to do so.

Adoption is a delicate subject, often with huge emotional entanglements for all parties involved, and most especially the adoptee. I think what guidelines WikiTree has in place balance the needs of the tree alongside the needs of the adoptee. 

---

Hi John,

Thank you for your comments!

I edited my text you quoted by adding "not". It was my intention to put that in for clarity.

Here are a couple of points.

1. If a person adds DNA tests to their profile, then it makes their profile accurate, but having them remove it can be viewed as being less accurate.

2. Duplicating a profile goes against the mission and if a duplicate profile does exist, where do we add the spouse(s) and children.  If my parents were duplicated, how do I collaborate with my brother on one profile?

I believe the source of our disagreement would be found in your statement (which I believe is widely shared).

"it prevents inaccurate DNA information from propagating up the lineage of the adoptive parents if the individual chooses to link to them rather than their biological parents."

The information that is propagated only indicates that a person has tested at some DNA Service. It is not a confirmation of being a blood relative. It is accurate if it reflects this fact the person did take such a test.

in all cases other than parent/child, If two names appear on a profile but the DNA indicates they are not related by blood, there is no way to determine by those two tests alone where the non-parental event occurred. This means that the tree will remain as is. This will probably be more and more frequent as the reporting of DNA testing increases.  I don't believe this is uncommon at FTDNA.

For adoptees, it is only different because they know and IMO, until they can be connected in some other way to our family tree, taking a DNA test should not be a reason to disconnect them.

 

---

Thank you, adding the 'not' does clarify your quote.

For your points:

1) Adding their DNA tests, if they are connected to their adoptive parents, adds inaccurate DNA information to every profile along the line of descent for Y or mtDNA, and to every profile connected for five generations for autosomal DNA. That is a lot worse than not adding a DNA test to your own profile if you are an adoptee.

If I am correct, and I hope someone with more knowledge will correct me if I am not, the intent of the DNA tools on WikiTree are to assist individuals in confirming their biological family connections. If your interpretation were correct then the propagation tools do not make sense. Why would it matter on a 5th generation ancestor that I had taken a DNA test if confirmation of genetic lines were not the intent. Having the note on the 5th generation grandparents allows any other individual whose lineage goes through that grandparent to compare their DNA, if they match it is a strong indicator that the match is correct. 

The ability to compare is what the propgation function serves, and why it is important that adding DNA tests to a profile that is known to not be in the gentic line should not happen.

2) I'm not sure where the duplication of profiles is coming in. As the WikiTree guidelines are written, there is only one set of parents linked to any profile, either the biological or the adoptive. The adoptee choses which they would rather link to, and hopefully adds notes to their biography explaining the situation and choice.

As for whether an adoptee not adding a DNA they have taken to their profiles, everyone makes those kind of editorial decisions each and every time they work on profiles. Deciding not to add a bit of information to your own profile, or even to linked family members, does not make the tree more or less accurate. A tad less complete maybe, but not inaccurate.

---

Hi John,

I am a bit rushed in my response so I will try to address some of your points.

2) I'm not sure where the duplication of profiles is coming in.

Wikitree recommends that Adoptees create a duplicate profile. http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Adoptions_and_multiple_parents

and they note

It's important that the use of duplicates be rare and unusual. It violates basic principles of WikiTree. See point I of our Honor Code on collaboration.

IMO, conditions that violate basic principles should be addressed first.

Agreement/Disagreement...

Adding their DNA tests, if they are connected to their adoptive parents, adds inaccurate DNA information to every profile along the line of descent for Y or mtDNA, and to every profile connected for five generations for autosomal DNA. 

Since the names appearing on a profile do not mean they are a match, they are presented accurately. Adding accurate information, such as this person did take such and such a test, should not be classified as inaccurate.

If your interpretation were correct then the propagation tools do not make sense.

I was torn how to respond...

If the goal is to not duplicate profiles and to accurately document the use of a DNA test, then the problem is in how the software uses this information and presents it.

For those who don't know the biological parent, the simplest solution to just the propagation issue is to add a checkbox next to the mother and the father labeled "Non-Biological". The process that runs each night stops adding the name once it sees this box has been checked.

For those who do know the biological parent, the complete solution, which is probably more involved, is to allow for a second parent, requiring at least one of the parents to be biological the other Non-biological. 

If they do implement these changes in the future, then all the duplicates created today will have to be merged back. The number of duplicates will grow each day the implementation(s)  does not take place. It would also appear to remove the only violation of both the Mission and Honor Code.

Best wishes,

Ken

 

---

I see what duplication you are referring to.

The WikiTree policy does not reccomend adoptees,create duplicates of themselves, It just allows flexibility in rare cases. The reccomendation is for the adoptee to choose between either connecting to their biological or their adoptive parents.

I believ you are understating what the DNA indications are for. They are not just to say that individual A has taken a test, they are meant to assist in confirming genetic lines through comparison of indivdual A's DNA results to that of any other individuals who have also taken the test and whose lineages intersect with A's. If the comparisons match then it is highly likely the ancestral lineages are confirmed, if they do not then there is an error in one of the lines.

I think having a checkbox as you describe would be an useful addition if it could be implemented. The option of having two sets of parents has been pretty well debated from what I've read here on G2G, and I believe the decision has been clearly made not to add it . . .  and I agree with it. The guidelines already in place allow adopteees plenty of flexibility in adding their family to the tree in the manner they are most comfortable with, without adding to the complexity or inaccuracy rate.

---

Hi John,

Looking at the context of this thread, the question was...

Since I'm not a coder, I have no idea how difficult it would be to add an adoption check off that would lead to a second family tree, but I'd like it considered. Also there was  a fair amount of informal adoption in the past, with kids showing up in the hosueholds of grandparents or other relatives, no way to indicate that either other than in text. Given that World Connect is not based on bloodlines, but any family connection, maybe it's time to think about making Wiki friendlier to adoptees.

If she adds her adopted children to her profile and adds to each individual profile the factual information they submitted DNA to a DNA Service, she would be following both the letter and spirit of the Mission Statement and Honor Code.  

Allowing an exception to the no duplication rule is based on the presumption that these duplicate profiles are temporary and will exist for a relatively short period of time.  An example of this might be you have a family of 10 children with will researched sources, and Wikitree has the father and only 1 of the children.  You import a GEDCOM with the father connected to children with the intent of merging the father soon after approval.

The solution that gets repeated to this question to create to profiles...

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/83671/how-do-i-list-biological-family-and-adopted-family

The problem with this is that there is no intent of merging these profiles later. Absent DNA services, I would suspect the number of adoptees on Wikitree would be low, but the percentage of Adoptees will drastically increase given the importance of DNA and family trees to them.

The only difference between adoptees and other nonparental events is that they know their profile does not contain the biological parent.  On 23andme, there are repeated stories of people discovering their parents may not actually be their biological parent or parents.

If I understand your (and most others) interpretation of the DNA Tests being listed on profiles...

If DNA tests indicate you and another person are not cousins but are still connected on Wikitree.  Your name and your connected cousin's name are still both listed on the affected profiles. This is not accurate, you are not biologically related. Using these two tests alone,  you can not tell where the problem occurs.

The solution then would be to remove both your test and your cousins test, until you can determine where the problem lies. This would make the profiles more accurate. We should only allow those tests that confirm a relationship, and hide the others.

I would actually prefer the opposite.

---

The solution would be to try to trace out where the error in the paper trail occurred and correcting the record, not removing the test data. It can be done, either by conducting additional tests or sleuthing through paper records. The difficulty would be dependant on how recent the split occurred. In the Wolcott family there have been both distant and recent errors discovered and corrected through their DNA project. In my own Beardsley DNA project a NPE was discovered, and while the project does not have enough members to triangulate exactly where the genetic break occurred, we can narrow it down considerably.

While none of these cases involved adoption, the process is virtually the same. In the long term, it does not really matter if the adoptee lets their DNA propagate up the line or not, at some point the error will be discovered and traced out. As you have pointed out, DNA testing is becoming more common daily.

---

Hi John,

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement in this exchange.

I do realize that I am presenting a different view than most. I am a retired software engineer who has consulted on many projects.  Like so many other industries, you learn from your mistakes and learn to recognize them in others.

 I am extremely impressed with how Wikitree has evolved.  It's not easy to keep such a large group with strong beliefs focused on a single goal. The mission statement tells us what the goal is, and the Honor Code is the Policy that describes how we get there. It's management's way of answering the tough questions when they arrive.

Wikitree has made the tough Policy decision when it comes to a choice between duplicates and accuracy.  This is because allowing duplicate profiles guarantees we can't reach our goal, but inaccuracies  can be corrected. In most cases, the accuracy or inaccuracy is in the eyes of the beholder, not a matter of some verifiable fact.

A BIG RED FLAG goes off in my mind when the solution involves a clear violation of either the Mission or Policy Statements. This situation usually creates a bigger problem that needs to be cleaned up later. I believe the solution to Adoptees should raise such a flag. 

The biggest value of DNA Testing is to discover errors and correct them, not confirm what we already believe to be true. The point I was making earlier related to the meaning of the names of DNA tests on a profile. It can't mean they confirm anything, they only indicate a connected person has taken a test.

If I look at your profile and see four autosomal DNA Testers. Does this mean that they are confirmations or do they only mean they are connected persons who have taken a DNA Test? This was the point I was trying to make.

You wrote, "it does not really matter if the adoptee lets their DNA propagate up the line or not"

This implies they have some choice but the software does not offer them any choice, even if they make their profile private, the auDNA test will propagate.  If the software did offer such a choice, I believe they would take advantage of it.

Entering accurate information should not be the cause of inaccuracies.