From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2013-09-26 09:50:59
|
I seem to be on a theme of handling multiples. I have a couple of instances of remarriage in my current data. Should the children be "in" both families, or only the one they were born in? Worse... I've just encountered a scenario where 4 children have suddenly (from one census to the next) ended up in a different household. I suspect the original parents have died or become totally impoverished. Again - do I make the children members of the new family? I can easily envision "difficult" children moving through a whole sequence of foster families. So - as children move though families, or (conversely) families move around children, how is this best represented, both in terms of data accuracy, and "readable" reports? BugBear |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-09-26 09:59:59
|
It's a fair question but there is no definite answer Paul (see http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-units.html). The children will always be biological offspring of their respective parents, but associating them with one or more families can be very subjective. It will also change over time, too. For instance, when they marry then they will usually be deemed to be part of a different family. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "paul womack" <pw...@pa...> To: <gra...@li...> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:50 AM Subject: [Gramps-users] Multiple families? >I seem to be on a theme of handling multiples. > > I have a couple of instances of remarriage in my current data. > > Should the children be "in" both families, or only the one they > were born in? > > Worse... I've just encountered a scenario where 4 children > have suddenly (from one census to the next) ended up in a > different household. > > I suspect the original parents have died or become > totally impoverished. > > Again - do I make the children members of the new > family? > > I can easily envision "difficult" children moving > through a whole sequence of foster families. > > So - as children move though families, or (conversely) > families move around children, how is this best represented, > both in terms of data accuracy, and "readable" reports? > > BugBear > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most > from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Nicholas R. <np...@bo...> - 2013-09-26 10:41:22
|
I have a similar situation, which I have recorded by associating the same child in more than one family but using the feature to record the relationship type. In my case, the child was boarded out whilst in the care of Barnardo's. The blood family is still recorded, but the foster family is an important part of the record, so worth noting, I think. Hope this helps, Nick On 26 Sep 2013, at 11:00, Tony Proctor <to...@pr...> wrote: > It's a fair question but there is no definite answer Paul (see > http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-units.html). > > The children will always be biological offspring of their respective > parents, but associating them with one or more families can be very > subjective. It will also change over time, too. For instance, when they > marry then they will usually be deemed to be part of a different family. > > Tony Proctor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "paul womack" <pw...@pa...> > To: <gra...@li...> > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:50 AM > Subject: [Gramps-users] Multiple families? > > >> I seem to be on a theme of handling multiples. >> >> I have a couple of instances of remarriage in my current data. >> >> Should the children be "in" both families, or only the one they >> were born in? >> >> Worse... I've just encountered a scenario where 4 children >> have suddenly (from one census to the next) ended up in a >> different household. >> >> I suspect the original parents have died or become >> totally impoverished. >> >> Again - do I make the children members of the new >> family? >> >> I can easily envision "difficult" children moving >> through a whole sequence of foster families. >> >> So - as children move though families, or (conversely) >> families move around children, how is this best represented, >> both in terms of data accuracy, and "readable" reports? >> >> BugBear >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> October Webinars: Code for Performance >> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. >> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most >> from >> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Enno B. <enn...@gm...> - 2013-09-26 11:38:24
|
Paul, > I have a couple of instances of remarriage in my current data. > > Should the children be "in" both families, or only the one they > were born in? Wrong question. Why create two families? You can easily add a 2nd marriage event to the 1st, can't you? > Worse... I've just encountered a scenario where 4 children > have suddenly (from one census to the next) ended up in a > different household. > > I suspect the original parents have died or become > totally impoverished. > > Again - do I make the children members of the new > family? Yes. I use Gramps to record history, family history, and for me, family is a bond between people, which may be biological, legal, or simply a care based relationship. So, if children lived with a family, which the census seems to suggest, they belonged there, and should be recorded as such. > So - as children move though families, or (conversely) > families move around children, how is this best represented, > both in terms of data accuracy, and "readable" reports? I suggest linking children to every family they've somehow been part of, and adding adoption or similar events to make sure that you can recognize what was when. I must add that I'm not very familiar with how these events appear in reports, because I mainly use Gramps as a recording tool. regards, Enno |
From: Nick H. <nic...@ho...> - 2013-09-26 17:42:33
|
On 26/09/13 12:38, Enno Borgsteede wrote: >> So - as children move though families, or (conversely) >> >families move around children, how is this best represented, >> >both in terms of data accuracy, and "readable" reports? > I suggest linking children to every family they've somehow been part of, > and adding adoption or similar events to make sure that you can > recognize what was when. This approach works well, but equally you could use families just to define biological relationships. For adoptions I would certainly suggest adding both a biological and adoptive family. Children in different families are still recognised as having a half-sibling relationship if they share a parent. This is also reflected in reports. > I must add that I'm not very familiar with how > these events appear in reports, because I mainly use Gramps as a > recording tool. Where I would expect a difference is in family group reports. Census events are a good way to record family groups. Nick. |
From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2013-09-27 08:09:51
|
Nick Hall wrote: > On 26/09/13 12:38, Enno Borgsteede wrote: >>> So - as children move though families, or (conversely) >>>> families move around children, how is this best represented, >>>> both in terms of data accuracy, and "readable" reports? >> I suggest linking children to every family they've somehow been part of, >> and adding adoption or similar events to make sure that you can >> recognize what was when. > > This approach works well, but equally you could use families just to > define biological relationships. For adoptions I would certainly > suggest adding both a biological and adoptive family. > > Children in different families are still recognised as having a > half-sibling relationship if they share a parent. This is also > reflected in reports. That all sound excellent. I shall so do. BugBear |
From: Craig T. <ctr...@co...> - 2013-09-26 12:48:13
|
At 10:50 AM +0100 9/26/13, paul womack wrote: >Worse... I've just encountered a scenario where 4 children >have suddenly (from one census to the next) ended up in a >different household. > >I suspect the original parents have died or become >totally impoverished. > >Again - do I make the children members of the new >family? Well, for now, I'd say, record a census event with those 4 children present at that address because that seems to be all the solid information you have! Do you have more evidence that there was an ongoing relationship? Remember that a census is a point-in-time snapshot. Perhaps the children were staying with neighbours just that one night while their parent(s) were away? By way of example, my G-G-uncle married a woman who already had a child--the child's name was Frederick Augustus Anning. My GG-uncle and his wife were listed in 1850 US census including two 'new' children but not Fred. In the next Canadian census, 1851, there is a "Fred Treleaven" listed in the return for my GG-uncle's parents and apparently enrolled in school. I believe this would be Fred Anning in the house of his step-grandparents*. By the 1861 Canadian census, Fred Anning (did he really use the name "Treleaven" for a time? Or did the 1851 census-taker just assume his last name?) is recorded with his mother and step father. Seems strange that Fred wasn't in the same house with his mother on the census nights in 1850 or 1851. That's about the extent of the information that I have on these folks. No one with first hand knowledge is still alive, obviously, so I may never really know. Craig *Is that the right term for this relationship? |
From: dasunt <da...@gm...> - 2013-09-27 04:24:07
|
On 9/26/2013 4:50 AM, paul womack wrote: > I seem to be on a theme of handling multiples. > > I have a couple of instances of remarriage in my current data. > > Should the children be "in" both families, or only the one they > were born in? I would most likely put a divorce event and then another marriage event in the same family. > Worse... I've just encountered a scenario where 4 children > have suddenly (from one census to the next) ended up in a > different household. > > I suspect the original parents have died or become > totally impoverished. > > Again - do I make the children members of the new > family? > Add the individuals to the new family and change the relationship type to each parent. Gramps is nicely flexible this way - it also has an "unknown" relationship to a parent, which I've used before for an issue of uncertain paternity. |