I’m revisiting a past post only because it came up again, this time during a presentation at the Corbit Calloway Library in Odesa, Delaware. The word “adoption” isn’t new to many of us while doing our family research or research for a client. Put it appears to be one of those words that cause confusion while some continue to conduct their own family research.
“Do I include someone who is adopted in my family tree?”
“Do I include the biological parents of my grandfather?”
My answer was yes to both, but I know some are concerned that this might offend the step parent or the adoptive family members. For those conducting research for their own family you must weigh the affects it will have on all of those involved. But I reminded them if this is a family member and you consider them family then they should be included, that was my opinion. At the same time, I know while most conduct their family research their focus is directly on their “bloodline” and not the family members title. I gave a professional research example that when I come across an adopted family member (cousin, uncle or aunt) while conducting research for a client that I do include that family member. However, I do note that this family member was adopted. I leave it up to all my clients that it is their choice if they wish to follow up on this notation and wish to research more on this family member. But if I find that a direct family member (mother, father or grandparent) is adopted then I feel obligated as a researcher to include the information about the biological family members. As I’ve always said once my research is completed and I review everything with the client it is up to them what they do with that information.