George Washington Did Have Children. Two of them.

I have heard it repeated countless times by trustworthy genealogists that George Washington had no children. Today I found out that is untrue. After marrying Martha Dandridge Custis, he adopted two of her grandchildren from her first marriage.

A child by blood is not more of  a child than a child by law.

If I interpret the above link - Organizations Acknowledge George Washington's Biracial Family Tree - correctly, it is new information, or at least confirmed rumor, that Washington's adopted son had children with slaves. However, it isn't new information that the adopted son had children through marriage.

George Washington Parke Custis married Mary Fitzhugh in 1804, and their child, Mary Anna Randolph Custis, married Robert E Lee. Here's a chart of their descendants for three generations.

I first learned of this news story at: ExtremeGenes

Adoption and Genealogy

Six years ago, Tamura Jones at Modern Software Experience discussed Adoption and Genealogy in the posts Adapted Ahnenlist and Adoption in Genealogy. At that time, I had no idea adoption was in my future.

If you're already familiar with the traditional Ahnenlist/Ahnentafel format, his idea for adapting it to include both (A)dopted and (B)irth parents is so natural, you probably don't need me to explain it here, or follow the links in the paragraph above. An instance where the letters in a numbering system are actually meaningful in themselves is rare, it seems like kismet when it happens.

Of course, adoption isn't the only non-traditional relationship that the genealogist has to think about today. For example, it's 'conceivable' someone might want to indicate surrogacy in a chart. Polyfamilies may also wish to chart multiple lineages. The individual genealogist might need to come up with their own lettering system, but no one should feel compelled to ignore a lineage in their reports important to them in their research.

While it is possible to separate the lineages into separate reports, and this may seem easier, sometimes the whole can be greater than the parts. An interwoven ahnentafel might reveal commonalities and differences previously unconsidered. There are 26 letters of the Latin alphabet, and their meanings can be indicated in a key at the bottom of the list. If somehow we run out of room for relationships, there's always the Greek alphabet waiting in the sidelines.

DNA Testing Without Relative Matching

Image Source: Office of Biological and Environmental Research 
of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

I've seen several people on social networks and on blogs question why, when they email one of their potential cousin matches on a DNA testing site, they don't get a response.

There can be reasons one wants the test, but doesn't want to communicate with relatives.

For example:

Let's say you've recently adopted a child. You either know the names of the birth parents, or you don't; you've either traced their ancestry back a few generations, or you haven't. You'd like to test their DNA to see the composition of their ethnicity, however, you have no interest whatsoever in communicating with close family members of the birth parents, and furthermore, you have no clue who the birth parents told about the existence of the child and their decision to give the child up. You feel it's certainly not your place to get involved in that. You can imagine the shock of seeing an unknown "match" that indicates a close Parent/Child or Aunt/Nephew relationship, and don't want to put a stranger through that shock

I've been reading the Privacy statements for 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Ancestry seeing what provisions there are to have one's DNA tested, get an ethnicity breakdown, but not participate in the relative matching services. (Italics indicate direct quotes from their privacy guidelines.)

• For 23andMe their "DNA Relatives" feature is Opt-In.

23andMe gives you the ability to share information with other individuals who have 23andMe accounts through (i) our community forums, (ii) relative finding features (e.g., “DNA Relatives”), and (iii) other sharing features (such information is “User Content”). Please refer to your settings. You may be required to opt-in to some of this sharing, but some features require an opt-out. For example, we provide the ability to opt-in to our ancestry DNA Relatives Database where your information will be shared with potential relative matches. Alternatively, if you were participating in the DNA Relatives Database you may opt-out or change the visibility of your profile data by visiting your Settings. Also, please note that certain types of your User Content may be viewable by other 23andMe users and once posted, you may not be able to delete or modify such content.

• For FamilyTreeDNA the privacy policy states that they only share Contact Information with matches if both sign a release statement.

If the matching program finds a genetic match between you and another person in the database and you have each signed the release form Family Tree DNA will notify you via e-mail.
If a genetic match is found between you and another individual who enters the library at some time in the future, both will be given the information that a potential match is in the database provided that BOTH of you have signed the release form. Only where both parties have signed the release form will we release contact information concerning the separate parties to the other party. In this way, all persons in the database will have the right to decide if they want to contact their genetic match(es).

For users that signed the release form, Family Tree DNA may show your ethnicity breakdown to your genetic matches. However, you can opt-out of sharing your ethnicity and keep your results private with only you and the administrators of projects to which you belong by modifying your privacy settings here.

I participated in the Autosomal Transfer of my Ancestry.com DNA test results. I don't recall filling out the release form that they link to in their Privacy Statement. I suspect I checked boxes stating that I was consenting, or there was language that by performing the transfer I was consenting, as I am able to email matches, and they are able to email me. It is possible I filled out an online form without remembering doing so.

However, in the account settings, under "Family Finder Matches & Email Notifications" the option is provided:

Make the following DNA matches available on my Family Finder matches page and show my profile/contact information to those matches. Also notify me about new matches by email (Immediate, Close and Distant only). "Yes" enables all of the above. "No" disables all of the above.

It sounds like by selecting "No" I would disappear as a match from those relatives. And the option lets you choose different settings for Immediate, Close, Distant, and Speculative. These labels are defined here.

Immediate means Parent/Child, Siblings, Aunt/Uncle
Close means 1st and 2nd Cousins

• At Ancestry.com it appears you can't remove yourself from the matches list. Their privacy statement indicates

Throughout your AncestryDNA™ experience, we want to ensure that you are comfortable with your settings and how much content you wish to make public. Below are some ways that you can control the privacy settings of your AncestryDNA account and DNA results pages.

1. Username: You can choose how your name appears to your DNA matches...
2. Ethnicity profile: You can decide how much of your complete genetic ethnicity profile you want to make viewable to your DNA matches...
3. Family tree: You can choose whether or not to link your DNA test to an Ancestry.com family tree...
4. Deleting your test results: If you desire, you can choose to delete your DNA test results...

While this provides adequate privacy and security since you can use an anonymous username, not share your ethnicity profile, or your family tree, and refuse to respond to any messages that matches send you through the Ancestry message system, it doesn't seem to provide a way to hide you as a match completely so that you don't get any of those messages.

***

It appears that among the three major DNA services, 23andMe or FamilyTreeDNA are the choices for someone who wants solely to find out their ethnicity breakdown without the Relative-Matching services.

But none of them provide a complete 'cloaking' mechanism that would allow you to see all matches, but wouldn't let those matches see you. FamilyTreeDNA does offer "partial cloaking." One could say "no" to "Immediate" and perhaps "close" relatives and "Yes" to "distant" and "speculative." This would allow the person in the above speculated situation to communicate with more distant relatives, but remain hidden from the closer ones. However, it's not difficult to imagine a 3rd or 4th cousin telling the immediate or close match you're hiding from that you appear on their list as sharing the same chromosomes. So to truly prevent that from happening the person in the hypothetical situation mentioned would have to hide from all relatives.

This is just one example of why someone might not be responding to your messages. (Even if they are at a service where they could hide their results, they might not realize it.) There are probably other reasons, too.

A "True Certification of Facts"

A "True Certification of Facts" may not always be certifying what you think.

This is a current Missouri Birth Certification form, with all identifying information removed.
(And in gray scale to prevent it from being used for illegitimate purposes.)

This is actually an amended certificate, but there is no way to tell that, is there?

[I have removed nothing except the names, dates, ages, gender, locations and state file number.]

The individual was born in the spring of 2013. The amending took place in October of 2014. The Date Filed still reflects the original filing date of the original certificate. The date at the bottom of the form is just the date the certified document was requested at the local Vital Records office.

The state registrar signed that this is a "true certification of name and birth facts as recorded...." However, the name of the child, the name and age of the mother, and the name and age of the father are all different from the original certificate.

Legally, I agree with the statement. The Mother and Father on the form are now (as of October 2nd, the date their adoption was legally finalized) the mother and father. The words 'Natural' or 'Birth' are not used to describe "Mother" and "Father" on the form.

Decades from now, if a genealogy researcher obtained this certificate, without any other knowledge, they would likely make that assumption, wouldn't they? They'd be wrong.

In this case, the individual (and his brother) are going to grow up knowing that they are adopted. But if the parents chose not to tell them, the birth certificate would in no way give it away.

Keep this in mind when looking at documents.
Know the difference between what is stated, and what you only assume is stated.

Raising Relatives and non-Relatives

As I mentioned a month ago, my wife and I are in the process of adopting twin boys, so I've wondered a little bit about other adopted children in my genealogy database, and how easy it is when looking at census records to confuse parent-child relationships.

One instance is the Denyer family in 1870. 

Samuel and Zerelda (Singleton) Denyer - Children: Amanda, Robert, Albert and Ida
Ebenezer and Sarah (Hartley) Denyer - Children: William and Margaret

Samuel Denyer died in 1861, and Zerelda died in 1867, so by the time of the 1870 census, their children were orphans. It is common for a relative to assume guardianship of orphaned children, and that is what happened.

According to the 1870 census, Amanda, Robert, Albert, and Ida Denyer were living with their uncle's family - my second great grandparents Ebenezer and Sarah (Hartley) Denyer, and their two children William and Margaret.

Another instance is the Feinstein family in 1930

Harry and Dora (Servinsky) Feinstein - Children: Sidney, Adeline, Alvin, Willard, Seymour
Herman and Annie (Blatt) Feinstein - Children: Bernard, Belle, Seymour

Dora Feinstein died in 1920. Harry remarried in 1928. According to the 1930 census, he was employed as an insurance agent. However, his children were no longer living with him and his second wife. (By 1930, all but their youngest was over the age of 18, but Seymour was only 15 years old.)

In 1930 Adeline and Alvin are living with my great grandparents Herman and Annie Feinstein, and their children. Sidney Feinstein is a lodger in a hotel, and Seymour was a resident of the Jewish Orphan Home. I have been unable to find Willard in the census.

If Harry was alive and employed, why was Seymour placed in an orphan home? I'm unable to answer this question. It's possible he was placed in the home prior to his father's remarriage.

A third instance is my wife's 2nd great grandfather, Louis Pleas Gober

In the 1880 census, Louis is living with the (unrelated, to my knowledge) Kinder family in Cape Girardeau, MO. I know his father died in 1876, but I am unsure what happened to his mother.

I recently came across these statistics:

In 2010, in the State of Missouri, "there were 10,174 children in the custody of the Children’s Division."
Only "3,427 of youth placed in the foster care system live in the homes of relative and kinship providers."
I suspect the numbers in other states are similar.

Social Media Policy for Parents

My wife and I are in the process of adopting twin boys.

Many questions have popped into my mind over the past few weeks, and one of them is what our social media policy should be.

I am a very public person. You can find out a lot of information about me on the internet. Some, perhaps, I might wish you couldn't. (Some I might attempt to see if I can remove before my sons-to-be are of internet surfing age.) However, almost everything I have put online about myself, I have made a conscious decision to do so. I have a policy on this blog of not sharing photographs of living relatives without being absolutely sure they will approve. The boys are only 1 year old, so they don't have the ability to consent, yet.

This blog is public, and indexed by search engines, which is one reason I refrain from sharing photographs of and stories about living relatives. My Facebook account is visible only to 'friends.' However, those Facebook friends include dozens of people I have never met - mostly fellow genealogists. A lot of them I feel like I know through their blogs, but I don't really know them. And there are a handful of other 'friends' I only know through the internet. Facebook does make it relatively easy to share posts with only a select group of friends, and I could divide my friend list between those people I have met, and those I haven't.

Then there is the question of whether I need to go through the process of removing geotags from photographs that I do choose to upload. This is an easier one for me to answer. The main concerns with geotags is that they can pinpoint the location the photograph was taken. So if you post a photograph when you are on vacation, someone might know you are on vacation. If you post a photograph of your kid at home, someone can figure out where you live. I don't post vacation photos until I am home. It's a common safety precaution whether one has kids or not. And whether or not I post photographs taken at home, it is very easy to find my home address on the internet. (A little more difficult since my wife and I dropped our landline, but still fairly easy.) Posting photographs with geotags will not lead to a decrease in privacy. At least not in my situation.

Lots of my friends post photographs of their children on Facebook, and while the boys haven't yet been placed into our home, that date is only days away, and I already am feeling the 'proud father' cravings to share my naches ('joy') with the world.

Input is welcomed.