Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've backed myself into a corner and would appreciate some suggestions. I use Family Tree Maker 2017, but I suspect the situation would be the same regardless of software.
My mother was adopted. When my sister and I began researching our family, we included her adoptive ancestors in our tree because it was what we had and they were our family as we knew it. We have since obtained sufficient documents to allow us to research her biological ancestors, currently managing those within an entirely separate tree. For several reasons, we would now like to have our two biological families in the same tree, without losing our adoptive family. I'm considering two options.
1) I can export our paternal family from our first tree and merge it with the second tree. Not as easy as it sounds, but it's workable. This option presents some issues because many of our mother's references refer back to people and source documents that would no longer be part of her tree (her adoptive family).
2) I think I can merge the two trees as they currently exist, so that the new tree includes our biological paternal ancestors, biological maternal ancestors, AND adoptive maternal ancestors. The complexity of that option, along with the possibility for confusion concerns me a little.
Anybody dealt with a similar situation? Any suggestions? Thanks for your help.
There is an option to change a relationship from "biological" to "adoptive". Or is it that you want to list both as biological? Marking one family as adoptive allows to also show a biological tree.
Whichever option you go with, be sure that the merged trees are a new tree, that way the two original trees are untouched. If the merge doesn't go well, you can just delete it and try again as long as the originals aren't altered. Personally, I would go with the second option, because I like having everything in one place.
Personally, I would go with the second option, because I like having everything in one place.
Thanks, I'm leaning in that direction also. My original thoughts were option 1, but the second option seems to be a more complete solution. Hopefully, complexity will not become an issue. And thanks for the new tree reminder. I will definitely do that. Tried to rep you, but C-D says too soon.
Clawson, the adoptive parents are already marked that way. My maternal biological ancestors are currently in a separate tree, and I'm just trying to figure out the best way to get all my biological ancestors into the same tree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
