Am I too sensitive?

It depends on if she's putting everything in there or singling your dd out, imo. So if someone got divorced, is she putting that in there to reflect the true accuracy of the family history? Are step children identified as such? I think it would bother me on a personal level because we don't make it a distinction in the family as far as our relationships go etc. But on the logical side, I do understand the importance of how the family tree came to be. kwim? For generations to come, it's something that they can look back on and usually you want that to be accurate for geanology purposes.

She is just updating the information that my husband's uncle kept forever. His uncle never specified that his son was adopted or that his wife was adopted.

It is traditional, for the sake of accuracy, to put some designation of "adopted" and also to designate wives as:John Smith married (1) Annie Adams (m. 1970, div. 1976) (2) Betty Boop (m. 1976; died 1978) - son Barney born January 1, 1977 (3) Carol Caper (m. 1979)If a wife were an adopted child, it would be designated on her family line, not on the marriage line.I think the fact that your child was included says that they accept her. Some families refuse to consider an adopted child as part of the family at all.On a family tree, stepchildren are usually not listed at all.

Mama - depends on how you do your tree....:) JJ - if she's updating and not staying consistent with the previous way or not adding to change all the other adoptions, I'd be irritated simply because it doesn't make sense to have your dd singled out.

I asked her about it and she said she wondered if we wanted her listed as adopted or not. When I mentioned that her nephew was never listed as adopted, she changed it. I'm glad I just went and talked to her instead of festering about it.

I'm not suggesting that this is at all why your mother indicated your daughter was adopted, but this discussion about heritage reminded me about something that really upset me the other day.... I was talking to an agency, and was discussing choosing gender (we aren't) and I laughed and said...I know everyone wants those cute baby girls, but we'll take a cute baby boy too! She said, well I just think it's sad the reason why most people choose gender...and sort of trailed off, so I asked what she meant. She said with AA adoptions, it was her experience that many families did not want to adopt boys because that forever changed the family names genetic make-up. I didn't really get it, but I just agreed that was awful...cause for me, not choosing a boy based on genetic anything seemed weird. I thought most people picked because they have 5-10 boys, so they wanted a girl! Talking to my husband about it and he explains what she means and now I'm so upset! She basically meant that families didn't want to adopt and AA boy because then their last name would forever have AA hertiage in it...where as if you have a girl, she would marry, and her children (either full AA or biracial or whatever) would be another last name. An AA boy would marry, and have children, with our last name, and they would be at least 1/2 AA and so on and so on.... Granted that's not a guarentee on the last name, but I was so upset...That kind of thing never crossed my mind. I asked my husband if he thought anyone in his family would be upset that we could add "african" blood to the last name and he was like...Honestly, I don't think any of them would have ever thought of it either. Sometimes, I just cry...really, sometimes I just want to believe that things in this world are a lot different than they really are.

I never thought of the last name thing either. It's just so sad. It makes me wonder about where some people are coming from. In our transracial training with our agency, there was a couple who said they were in the biracial program because they heard it was cheaper and there was a shorter wait. They said they transferred from the caucasian program because they couldn't afford it any more because of the monthey advertising fees on the website. If I had an agency, I would not let those people adopt a child until they did some serious counselling.

There is a great book called The Sweeter the Juice: A Family Memoir in Black and White by Shirlee Taylor Haizlip It is about her AA ancestors that "passed". Passing - AA of light skin who passed into white society - began in the years after the civil war and continued through the civil rights movement. People left entire families behind to escape racism ad live in white society. This book is about the author finding her "white" relatives. My point is, you never know. We are more homogenious than you think. We had this shroud of mystery over my decendants for years. I actually wondered if there might be AA ancestors. Turns out my Grandma was Romany. They kept this a secret for years.

On the one hand, in every family tree my family has ever compiled, my children were just listed like every other child. On the other hand, looking at some of the family tree sites after reading your post, I noticed that it seems accepted to note if a child or family member joined in a "non-traditional" way. So I'd suggest that if you aren't comfortable with the designation of "adopted", then you have a right to explain your concerns. But if it doesn't get changed, I wouldn't get too worked up about it... after all, you know they are your children... and that's all that really matters. Audrey

I dont think you should be offended if she wants to put that she's adopted, it's not a secret & it's something to be proud of, not ashamed of.

I often read the obituaries in my state newspaper(a few times I knew of someone who has passed so that's why I do read it). When they list the deceased's family, in my state paper, they use the word "adopted" next to the title of daughter, son, grandchild, etc. There perhaps even more so in the family tree, I dont understand why the distinction has to be made that some deceased person's child was adopted. Perhaps someone can explain this one to me? I dont see the logic and I think tha'ts a bit offensive in the 21st century. Amy K, NJ

Obituaries designate family the way that it is submitted by the surviving family members. If the family told the newspaper that certain members were adopted, they are listed as such. If they don't choose to tell, it isn't listed. All of the grandchildren and half of the great-grandchildren in our family are adopted, but none of them were listed that way because we chose not to.