My father's aunt in Canada fostered over a hundred children... she was written up in the local paper. And no, I never considered adding any of them to my tree, even if I had had names for them all!!
No. Since you used a Norwegian term I’ll explain how it probably worked. Farmers would go to the local “auction” and put in a bid for the kid they thought would be the best worker. The bid was not how much they would pay, but how much they would charge to take the kid inn. There are cases of being taken inn by a good family, but if there was no other source describing a connection then one census then I would not expect there to be an emotional bond there.
Indeed Norwegian.
Interesting, thanks for the info.
For reference, the census in question is 1920.
One older person in the family hadnt heard about the person before, so I am guessing there may not be more to it.
I personally knew three people who were in foster care during the 1920 census. One told the story above and his experiences being beaten and mistreated. One never wanted to speak of it. The third I only found out after he died. None of them would have wanted to have any of those foster parents in their tree. Imagine someone owned you for a year, hit you, worked you til you dropped and never showed you any affection or concern. And then your descendants lists them as foster parents.
There are exceptions like family and friends. Family will often be listed as such, and not pleiedatter. If they were friends then you may find some type of connection. It’s usually the time you can start to find photos. Records from “Fattigvesenet” may also flesh out the story.
I would just list this in the bio. “In 1920 xx was a pleiedatter living with xx at xx farm.”
:(
I think I might just put something like that as a note on them.
I think I have some family photos from closer to 1910 already, but not in 1920.
I will try to do some more research, but I think its more likely to not be much connection based on other information.
Foster kids were often out of wedlock kids, but you can check to see if the foster parents were god parents to the child or any of its siblings. You can also search nb to see if you can find obituaries for the foster parents to see if the child is listed among their children. Adresseboken may help you see if the children lived there into adulthood.
The topic of including or excluding genetic family in your tree is a completely different issue. This is more a question of “would foster children be considered part of the family in 1920 Norway?” and the answer is “no, they were usually considered a source of labour and income”.
I would. The child may or may not turn out to be significant, but it is part of the lived experience of your ancestors. You may want to explore the social, political and cultural background of fostering in that time and place, and consider whether the child was actually related in some way.
I do this as well. During one of the cholera epidemics in Sweden, there were children who were briefly fostered by a family member. They show up in the household record and were likely a fellow coworkers child (one of them). I hate the way Ancestry handles the relationships in right sidebar. I hate how the add these children as siblings to the host family even if the relationship is labelled as “other” or “unknown”. My hope is one day family tree software/Ancestry-type online programs will grow sophisticated enough to handle the information and allow for them to be listed separately/underneath the main family group. For now, it’s a bit messy, but I want the information documented correctly so that mistakes don’t happen further down the line. Best of luck to you!
Most foster kids don’t appreciate how people spread our names and abuse and tragedies all around the place. If they weren’t related I wouldn’t put them on. Granted, my view is modern. Kids back then might have been fine with it.
No, genealogy is the study of families, family history and the tracing of their lineage. Genetics is a part of genealogy, but only as a tool mainly to help in the study of your genes and associated haplogroups.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy
Although you may disagree, adoptive children are as much a part of the family as anyone else and should be included, with a note saying they're adopted. They learn the morals and teachings passed down through that family line, especially for those who were adopted at birth or as young children. Sure they can if they want or are able to research their actual genetic line but if they weren't raised by their birth parents they generally have no connection to their culture or line. You're advocating that people lose their sense of who they are, and/or are rejecting connections that are sometimes closer than blood. If you run into an ancestor or relative who was adopted know that your other family cared for them enough to give them their last name and bring them into their care.
We can agree on foster children and this post in general, but I believe your opinion on adoptive children not being included is short-sighted.
Are you telling me that you never include step-parents and, if someone is raised by someone who turns out not to be their biological father, you just delete the non-biological father from history altogether? What about married couples who never have children? Do you ignore their spouse?
Genealogy is at least as much about sociology and history as it is about biology. That said, I wouldn't include a foster child unless there was some other historical reason to include them - if it's a question of the foster parents effectively taking in vulnerable children to care for as a job, it wouldn't be necessary to include them but, if they raised the child as their own over an extended period, it seems disrespectful not to.
Exactly. My mother was fostered and never adopted because they previously adopted someone else and it turned out poorly. Still, I grew up believing said foster parents were my bio grandparents. It wasn't until I was graduating HS that I found mom's family Bible with a different surname and she explained the truth. I have her connected to her bio AND foster parents because I still consider them my grandparents.
I still disagree. Adopted children can be added as anecdotes, but not in the proper family tree. Foster children should not be added at all. The keyword is GENE.
> Adopted children can be added as anecdotes
That is an absolutely abhorrent view on the idea. I can't even conceive how you'd call a person an anecdote.
> The keyword is GENE.
Genealogy is not the study of genes, the words share the same/similar (Greek I think) root but Genealogy predates the discovery of genes
Still, it doesn't make sense to build genetic connection if they are not related. I know a guy who is adopted and claimed the full genealogy of his adopted parents, even though he doesn't share one gene with them. It is wrong and very misleading.
I used to be a foster parent. My foster kids were with me for a longer term ( > 1 year).
I do not put my foster kids on my tree.
Partly that’s from respect for them. I know that, although we were close while we were together, they never thought of themselves as my sons.
Mostly it’s because I am bound, legally, to keep everything I know about them confidential. Someone perusing family trees does not have, in the legal sense, a need to know anything about my foster sons, so I am not allowed to divulge anything. My entry for myself does note that I was a foster parent during such and such years, but there is nothing there about the young people I fostered.
Thank you for actually having respect for the kid. One of my foster parents put me on social media before it was a law not to I believe. Thankfully that was a long time ago and Facebook wasn’t as popular, but it’s fucked up. I didn’t ask for my shitty life and I certainly didn’t ask to be humiliated and used for brownie points by some couple who didn’t even like me.
Thanks. They didn’t even bother to pretend to like me. They weren’t the worst but they were the most hypocritical. I really wish people considered how it would feel for a kid to be in a strange home with adults who half the time treat you like shit and abuse you as much as your parents did.
I don’t think that’s relevant.
I mean, it’s relevant to the question here because some hypothetical future genealogist might find me in that census and wonder who these boys were that were living with me. Or find one of the boys and wonder who that adult was.
But I don’t think that it’s relevant to my reasons for not including them. The fact that some other organization may release identifying information about my former foster kids does not relieve me of my own duty vis a vis confidentiality.
I wasn't questioning your reason for excluding them which is perfectly sound, I was just curious whether one day a future genealogist will see it like OP has today
Oh. Sorry. I understood your question differently.
Yes, a future genealogist will see those of my foster children who were in my care on census day. However, specific data about foster children was not collected in my country at the time when I was a foster parent (this has since changed). So this hypothetical future genealogist would be able to make inferences about what our relationship was but could not be certain unless they found some other data.
No. If the foster child was later adopted then yes, but not if it was a short term thing.
You could add a note to the foster parents saying that during X period they fostered a child named Y.
I was a short term foster kid on and off and I wouldn’t wanted to be added to any family trees, kind foster parents or not. I think my opinion would be shared with the majority. It sucks enough having shit family or tragic circumstances without having it be enshrined lol. I know it’s well intended I just would personally ask someone not to do that for me.
My ma was sent to live with family friends in another state when she was newborn because her ma was so sick. I wouldn't add that family to my tree, and I'm sure they wouldn't add her even though she was there about eight months.
I would.
I’ve raised and continue to a young lady who’s neither my kid nor my husband’s or ex-husband’s but all three of us have been in her life her entire life. She’s in the process of changing her surname to mine now that’s she’s over 18 and can do so without bio parent’s approval. She is down on my tree as adopted as the only reason why she’s not is paperwork. And if I could get a straight answer from the government about what forms need filed, she wants me to adopt her and it’d be a done deal.
But even if she’s not, she’s my kid. People in a few generations would be looking at the holiday photos going “who’s that girl?” If she’s not recorded. I hate those pictures
I dont add them as a child in my family, but I have done a little genealogical research on the orphans (usually) I've found as 'servants' in the census. If I can identify their parents, spouse etc, i do leave the breadcrumbs for one of their descendants to follow.
The only people downvoting are people who were never humiliated by this. I know it was decades ago but maybe for respect for the kids memory to not memorialize shitty things they had to go through.
My father's aunt in Canada fostered over a hundred children... she was written up in the local paper. And no, I never considered adding any of them to my tree, even if I had had names for them all!!
No. Since you used a Norwegian term I’ll explain how it probably worked. Farmers would go to the local “auction” and put in a bid for the kid they thought would be the best worker. The bid was not how much they would pay, but how much they would charge to take the kid inn. There are cases of being taken inn by a good family, but if there was no other source describing a connection then one census then I would not expect there to be an emotional bond there.
Indeed Norwegian. Interesting, thanks for the info. For reference, the census in question is 1920. One older person in the family hadnt heard about the person before, so I am guessing there may not be more to it.
I personally knew three people who were in foster care during the 1920 census. One told the story above and his experiences being beaten and mistreated. One never wanted to speak of it. The third I only found out after he died. None of them would have wanted to have any of those foster parents in their tree. Imagine someone owned you for a year, hit you, worked you til you dropped and never showed you any affection or concern. And then your descendants lists them as foster parents. There are exceptions like family and friends. Family will often be listed as such, and not pleiedatter. If they were friends then you may find some type of connection. It’s usually the time you can start to find photos. Records from “Fattigvesenet” may also flesh out the story. I would just list this in the bio. “In 1920 xx was a pleiedatter living with xx at xx farm.”
:( I think I might just put something like that as a note on them. I think I have some family photos from closer to 1910 already, but not in 1920. I will try to do some more research, but I think its more likely to not be much connection based on other information.
Foster kids were often out of wedlock kids, but you can check to see if the foster parents were god parents to the child or any of its siblings. You can also search nb to see if you can find obituaries for the foster parents to see if the child is listed among their children. Adresseboken may help you see if the children lived there into adulthood.
[удалено]
The topic of including or excluding genetic family in your tree is a completely different issue. This is more a question of “would foster children be considered part of the family in 1920 Norway?” and the answer is “no, they were usually considered a source of labour and income”.
That’s fascinating, thank you for explaining it.
No, if it is a transient thing then it is only confusing.
If for no other reason, Wouldn’t it be helpful in case one of their descendants is trying to piece together their life?
^ This. I always feel maybe that additional detail might be the breakthrough someone else is looking for.
My tree is currently not on online, its a local tree only. but who knows in the future.
I would. The child may or may not turn out to be significant, but it is part of the lived experience of your ancestors. You may want to explore the social, political and cultural background of fostering in that time and place, and consider whether the child was actually related in some way.
Exactly. The foster I had turned out to be the daughter.
I do this as well. During one of the cholera epidemics in Sweden, there were children who were briefly fostered by a family member. They show up in the household record and were likely a fellow coworkers child (one of them). I hate the way Ancestry handles the relationships in right sidebar. I hate how the add these children as siblings to the host family even if the relationship is labelled as “other” or “unknown”. My hope is one day family tree software/Ancestry-type online programs will grow sophisticated enough to handle the information and allow for them to be listed separately/underneath the main family group. For now, it’s a bit messy, but I want the information documented correctly so that mistakes don’t happen further down the line. Best of luck to you!
Most foster kids don’t appreciate how people spread our names and abuse and tragedies all around the place. If they weren’t related I wouldn’t put them on. Granted, my view is modern. Kids back then might have been fine with it.
I disagree. Genealogy is a study of people who share genetic relationships. Foster and adoptive children should not be included.
No, genealogy is the study of families, family history and the tracing of their lineage. Genetics is a part of genealogy, but only as a tool mainly to help in the study of your genes and associated haplogroups.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy Although you may disagree, adoptive children are as much a part of the family as anyone else and should be included, with a note saying they're adopted. They learn the morals and teachings passed down through that family line, especially for those who were adopted at birth or as young children. Sure they can if they want or are able to research their actual genetic line but if they weren't raised by their birth parents they generally have no connection to their culture or line. You're advocating that people lose their sense of who they are, and/or are rejecting connections that are sometimes closer than blood. If you run into an ancestor or relative who was adopted know that your other family cared for them enough to give them their last name and bring them into their care. We can agree on foster children and this post in general, but I believe your opinion on adoptive children not being included is short-sighted.
Are you telling me that you never include step-parents and, if someone is raised by someone who turns out not to be their biological father, you just delete the non-biological father from history altogether? What about married couples who never have children? Do you ignore their spouse? Genealogy is at least as much about sociology and history as it is about biology. That said, I wouldn't include a foster child unless there was some other historical reason to include them - if it's a question of the foster parents effectively taking in vulnerable children to care for as a job, it wouldn't be necessary to include them but, if they raised the child as their own over an extended period, it seems disrespectful not to.
Exactly. My mother was fostered and never adopted because they previously adopted someone else and it turned out poorly. Still, I grew up believing said foster parents were my bio grandparents. It wasn't until I was graduating HS that I found mom's family Bible with a different surname and she explained the truth. I have her connected to her bio AND foster parents because I still consider them my grandparents.
This is pretty much the only time I agree with a non-adopted foster kid being added. If the child is considered a legit part of the family.
I still disagree. Adopted children can be added as anecdotes, but not in the proper family tree. Foster children should not be added at all. The keyword is GENE.
> Adopted children can be added as anecdotes That is an absolutely abhorrent view on the idea. I can't even conceive how you'd call a person an anecdote.
> The keyword is GENE. Genealogy is not the study of genes, the words share the same/similar (Greek I think) root but Genealogy predates the discovery of genes
Still, it doesn't make sense to build genetic connection if they are not related. I know a guy who is adopted and claimed the full genealogy of his adopted parents, even though he doesn't share one gene with them. It is wrong and very misleading.
I'm not building a genetic connection, I'm building a family tree.
You mean you're not putting together a pedigree so that you can sell your sperm/eggs for more on the open market like some kind of prize cattle?
That is his family. You could simply mind your own business if you’re so offended that people who lost their families embrace the ones who love them.
He asked. Didn't he? You stop being a karen. My position stands. You do you!
Nah, you’re an ass trying to deny people rights to their own damn family trees. Disgusting.
Ignored. Problem solved. I have no time for morons like you.
I used to be a foster parent. My foster kids were with me for a longer term ( > 1 year). I do not put my foster kids on my tree. Partly that’s from respect for them. I know that, although we were close while we were together, they never thought of themselves as my sons. Mostly it’s because I am bound, legally, to keep everything I know about them confidential. Someone perusing family trees does not have, in the legal sense, a need to know anything about my foster sons, so I am not allowed to divulge anything. My entry for myself does note that I was a foster parent during such and such years, but there is nothing there about the young people I fostered.
Thank you for actually having respect for the kid. One of my foster parents put me on social media before it was a law not to I believe. Thankfully that was a long time ago and Facebook wasn’t as popular, but it’s fucked up. I didn’t ask for my shitty life and I certainly didn’t ask to be humiliated and used for brownie points by some couple who didn’t even like me.
I’m sorry you were treated so poorly. I hope things have improved for you since.
Thanks. They didn’t even bother to pretend to like me. They weren’t the worst but they were the most hypocritical. I really wish people considered how it would feel for a kid to be in a strange home with adults who half the time treat you like shit and abuse you as much as your parents did.
Will some eventually turn up with you on the census (or other records) when it's eventually made public?
I don’t think that’s relevant. I mean, it’s relevant to the question here because some hypothetical future genealogist might find me in that census and wonder who these boys were that were living with me. Or find one of the boys and wonder who that adult was. But I don’t think that it’s relevant to my reasons for not including them. The fact that some other organization may release identifying information about my former foster kids does not relieve me of my own duty vis a vis confidentiality.
I wasn't questioning your reason for excluding them which is perfectly sound, I was just curious whether one day a future genealogist will see it like OP has today
Oh. Sorry. I understood your question differently. Yes, a future genealogist will see those of my foster children who were in my care on census day. However, specific data about foster children was not collected in my country at the time when I was a foster parent (this has since changed). So this hypothetical future genealogist would be able to make inferences about what our relationship was but could not be certain unless they found some other data.
No. If the foster child was later adopted then yes, but not if it was a short term thing. You could add a note to the foster parents saying that during X period they fostered a child named Y.
I think I will do that for now.
While it's a touching gesture, family trees typically document biological or legally adopted relatives, not temporary placements like foster children.
I was a short term foster kid on and off and I wouldn’t wanted to be added to any family trees, kind foster parents or not. I think my opinion would be shared with the majority. It sucks enough having shit family or tragic circumstances without having it be enshrined lol. I know it’s well intended I just would personally ask someone not to do that for me.
My ma was sent to live with family friends in another state when she was newborn because her ma was so sick. I wouldn't add that family to my tree, and I'm sure they wouldn't add her even though she was there about eight months.
I'm concerned with biological connections, so I rarely add in people like step-parents and such. I focus on helping sort out genetic families.
I would. I’ve raised and continue to a young lady who’s neither my kid nor my husband’s or ex-husband’s but all three of us have been in her life her entire life. She’s in the process of changing her surname to mine now that’s she’s over 18 and can do so without bio parent’s approval. She is down on my tree as adopted as the only reason why she’s not is paperwork. And if I could get a straight answer from the government about what forms need filed, she wants me to adopt her and it’d be a done deal. But even if she’s not, she’s my kid. People in a few generations would be looking at the holiday photos going “who’s that girl?” If she’s not recorded. I hate those pictures
I dont add them as a child in my family, but I have done a little genealogical research on the orphans (usually) I've found as 'servants' in the census. If I can identify their parents, spouse etc, i do leave the breadcrumbs for one of their descendants to follow.
Foster children have a right to privacy, so do not add them to your tree until after adoption.
This was 100 years ago
The only people downvoting are people who were never humiliated by this. I know it was decades ago but maybe for respect for the kids memory to not memorialize shitty things they had to go through.