When making a family tree for an adopted child?

Question

When making a family tree for an adopted child is it proper to not add yourselves, the adopted parents? The mom is helping make one for the baby and she asked Why I had not included myself and husband? I just want this to be a gift just for the baby, so is it ok if I leave us out of it?

Answer 1

Of course it's okay to leave yourself out (if that's what you really want) but are you not, in fact, a biological family member of the mom and, thus, the child?



The mother is your aunt, if I remember correctly. That would make you a cousin to the child (biologically speaking). If the family tree is not THAT large -- to include extended family -- then go ahead and leave yourself off IF you want to. Otherwise, I'd suggest putting yourselves on where you would 'fit' biologically.



I assume this is a gift for the child as a link to his/her PAST -- the family of nature. I'm not trying to be cold about it but I would have given ANYTHING to have something like that from my natural family as a child. In fact, I am making one for myself now. And, no, my a-parents wouldn't belong on it as THEY (unlike you) are NOT biologically related to me in any way.



Just so you know...the "family tree" thing, especially when it comes up in school settings, really really sucks for an adopted child -- well, except for those "I've accepted my adoptive family as my own and I just use them" adoptees, which I am not one of. Even for them, it makes the 'genetics' lesson take a giant 'dump' (pardon the expression) when using the a-family because there is NO explanation as to "where the brown eyes came from" or some such.



Do what you think is best. If it's a gift of heritage, leave yourselves off or put yourselves on in the position you belong -- biologically.

Answer 2

You don't say how old your son is. If he is in grade school, then I think the trying to do the adopted family might be too complex. If you have a lot of knowledge about your adopted family AND your child knows that you were adopted, then I would let your child make the decision. It might be a great learning experience for him about bloodlines.

Answer 3

I would wait until the adoption is final to work on it. If and when it becomes final you could do a few different things such as do two different family trees, adopted and bio, or just do one showing her bio fam. You would still be on it since you are also biologically related to her, so I don't see a problem...



Not to lecture you, because I know you're set in what you want, but I'm sure it's difficult for your aunt right now. Why don't you give her some space so you can ensure she's making the decision that's right for her without regard to what you and your husband feel? Also, making the tree after the adoption is final is best because I can acknowledge that you would be sad if she did change her mind. So take the pressure of of everyone and just give her some space.

Answer 4

It is okay to leave yourself out. You aren't the biological parent. If this is the same baby you've been wanting to take from your aunt, then you know the family lineage.

I just wouldn't count my chickens in your situation, know what I mean?



ETA: Seriously, you are all about the coersion, aren't you? I think you need to spend time thinking about what you are going to do if and when she decides to keep this baby. You are really getting the cart in front of the horse. IF she doesn't abort (as you said she wanted to do) and IF she decides to give up the baby, what would you do if she changed her mind later? This isn't something to go about lightly, and you sound like you are so concerned with the superficial. Look behind the physical family tree, and look at the real one, and try to help keep it intact, rather than cut off a branch for yourself.

Answer 5

I'm with Sunny on this one. What are you doing making a family tree for a child that isn't yours, may not be yours, and shouldn't be considered yours until the relinquishment revocation period is done and over with? And what are you doing making this into a project with the expectant mother before she has relinquished?

Answer 6

I would include all family members. Biological and adopted... but NOT label them as such. Family is family.

Answer 7

Most people don't have perfectly straight and linear family trees. Mine has a branch-off because my great-grandmother died and my great-grandfather remarried, and his new wife adopted my grandmother, who was still a child at the time. We always include my step-great-grandmother and her family also because she's the one we all knew when we were growing up, and she was a mother to my grandmother too.



It depends on the purpose of your family tree. If it's meant to be a genetic tree, you should leave yourselves out. If it's meant to include a broader definition of family, you can include two different branches as parents for the baby.



Basically, is your personal tree about biological family, or social family? Deciding that should indicate who ought to be on the tree.



I have to be honest, though-- I think it's too early for the tree. You need to prepare yourself that the expectant mom may still decide to parent. I would deal with the adoptive family tree only after you've actually adopted. It's not like the baby will have any idea when the tree was finished; I think you should wait till the adoption is legally finalized.

Answer 8

when we went to our foster parent classes someone showed us a family tree an adopted child had to do for a school project. It had 2 trees side by side with the adopted child in the middle and had both families on it. I thought that was pretty inventive.

Answer 9

It is so wonderful to see that your baby's birth mom wants you to be included in the family tree. You are her parents, and she knows it. It can be a gift for the baby, and you still be in the family tree. Because your baby is apart of your family. He/she is your child. You should be included. Your baby's birth mom is correct.

Answer 10

I guess it depends on the purpose. If the purpose of the "tree" is to show genealogical history, then it would be appropriate just to make it the natural family.



However, if the purpose of the tree is to show "family" then I think it would be appropriate to include *all* of the child's family (first family and adoptive family). If you google "adoptive family tree" I bet you'll get some different ideas for how this can be done -- including a grafted tree with two trunks that are entwined together, or an arrangement that has the child in the center and works away from him in two directions (roots and branches, if you're thinking of a literal tree).



Good luck.

Answer 11

yes its fine to leave yourself out. You are not the childs parents yet, its only right.



If the mother pushes the issue, explain that the tree would not be correct, and might confuse the child later on.



i hated those projects in school. my teacher always asked me why i wouldnt do it once, and i told her why. She made a big deal out of it, and after that, i made it up.

Answer 12

You shouldn't make one at all. You said your husbands aunt wasn't due til July, and that she was still unsure about relinquishing her baby.



If she decides (on her own, and since you wont leave her alone, I doubt THAT'S going to happen) to relinquish your husband's cousin, the family tree will be easy to make.



lol Sunny and Magic Pointe Shoes.

Answer 13

I have two trees. Our baby initially was in foster care so his parents weren't that helpful, mostly because they would never show up, so I made one with the information his caseworker gave us, and then I made another one with our family. We have contact with some of his birth family so they were helpful too.

Answer 14

Unless it's an open adoption, it would be difficult to do a family tree for an adoptee.



You could put the ancestry and below the mother and father, place a line straight down to the adoptive mother and father and then to the child, but the rest of the tree must be ONLY blood relatives.

cw

Answer 15

So you haven't even taken possession yet, and you're making a family tree? Still greasing the wheels, eh?



What a good, new coercive technique to play into your quest to get this woman to hand over her child. You really ought sell this idea to agencies--you could sell it right along with the "Dear Birhmother" package!



Heaven help this poor kid.

Answer 16

If you are investing your lives into a child by adopting them, you are bringing them into your family and you are really their parents now. True, you aren't part of the biological tree, but as long as it's an open adoption (which obviously it must be the way you've described it), you should be there to the side, just like the sunshine is there for the tree, nurturing it and helping it grow strong.