How are they related?

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:34 am

Hi,

A question on relativity. An unmarried couple gives birth to a child. The child is immediately adopted, legally, by the birth mother's parents. What is the legal and also the genealogical status of that child to the birth parents and the birth parent's siblings?
The same unmarried couple later give birth to a second child, but the second child is not given up for adoption. What are the second child's legal and genealogical status as regards the first child, etc?

dennis

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:12 am

Hi Dennis
Just applying common sense my thoughts would be that the first child (the one adopted by the birth mother's parents) is legally the child of the adoptive parents but genealogically the grandchild of those adoptive parents. So, that would make the adoptive child legally a half (not quite sure about the use of the word "half" here as it usually implies one shared parent, which is not the case here!) sibling to its own (birth) mother, still a child to its own (birth) father and genealogically still remains a child to its birth parents.

With the second child to the same couple I'd think that the second child could legally be seen as the niece or nephew of the first child, but genealogically that child is the full sibling of the first child.

But the above is only based on what seems to make sense to me, not any legal references on the matter, which may well be different.

Best wishes
Lesley

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:17 pm

That’s a curly one Dennis,

Biologically, it’s easy, but genealogically speaking maybe it’s just an entry of an additional set of parents (adopted) for the first child but not at the expense of the natural parents if there’s no provision in the computer program for two sets. In fact I don’t think, in these circumstances, that it really matters and it’s probably only worth an entry in the notes. That’s if what you mean is the way things are entered in a family tree on paper or on computer. Imagine the mess that could develop if things are made unnecessarily complicated at this stage and as generations are added to those two children.

Legally, as a completely unqualified guess, maybe it would depend on whether absolutely all rights and considerations as a natural child were assumed by an adopted child and whether all rights and considerations as a natural child were lost at the point of adoption. Because of different laws in different countries that would probably depend also on location. Usually not necessarily a problem where the normal type of adoption by an outsider occurs but imagine the legal minefield that could conceivably develop within that family with things like the entitlement to shares in various estates and the marriage laws as regards consanguinity etc.

Just some thoughts,
Alan

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:34 pm

maybe it would depend on whether absolutely all rights and considerations as a natural child were assumed by an adopted child and whether all rights and considerations as a natural child were lost at the point of adoption.

If in Scotland, as far as I'm aware, that would legally be the case.

Best wishes
Lesley

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:58 am

I was looking to find the legal point of adoption regarding reliquishment of all rights, this is one way the adoption process is carried out, that is all rights to the child by the natural parents are relinquished and all contact rights are removed also. There can be a change of surname and a new birth certificate issued in the adoptive parents surname. There is also an "open" adoption where access is permitted and change of information is open. However I should qualify this by stating that my comments are based on "modern" adoption law, and also that that varies from country to country, and in fact in Australia, from state to state. As for Scotland, I don't know what happens, and what was the practice in the past.
Up until relevantly recently, adoption meant full reliquishment of all rights and access. Although within a family I would guess there was access, unless there was some falling out.

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:05 am

Hi Stew
Not sure if this is any help:
http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/info-for-f ... 47,AR.html

Adoption is a legal procedure in which all parental rights and responsibilities for the child are permanently transferred by the court from the birth parents and/or the local authority to the adoptive parents.

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/caris ... /sr_20.php

Adoption is a court order, giving all parental responsibilities and rights for the child to the adopter(s) as if the child was born to them. Birth parents lose all responsibilities and rights unless these have already been removed by a freeing order. The child becomes the adopted child of the adopters.

Best wishes
Lesley

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Hello all,

It looks like there was no adoption legislation in England before 1926 and in Scotland before 1930. Before then adoptions were private arrangements and there was no such thing as a “legal adoption”.

For an overview of the situation in various countries around 1900 see. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Adoption

Adoption is not recognized in the laws of England, Scotland or the Netherlands, though there are legal means by which one may be enabled to assume the name and arms and to inherit the property of a stranger. In France and Germany, countries which may be said to have embodied the Roman law in their jurisprudence, adoption is regulated according to the principles of Justinian, though with several more or less important modifications, rendered necessary by the usages of these countries respectively. Under French law the rights of adoption can be exercised only by those who are over fifty years of age, and who, at the time of adoption, have neither children nor legitimate descendants. They must also be fifteen years older than the person adopted. In German law the person adopting must either be fifty years of age, or at least eighteen years older than the adopted, unless a special dispensation is obtained. If the person adopted is a legitimate child the consent of his parents must be obtained; if illegitimate, the consent of the mother. Both in Germany and France the adopted child remains a member of his original family, and acquires no rights in the family of the adopter other than that of succession to the person adopting.
In the United States adoption is regulated by the statutes of the several states. Adoption of minors is permitted by statute in many of the states. These statutes generally require some public notice to be given of the intention to adopt, and an order of approval after a hearing before some public authority. The consequence commonly is that the person adopted becomes, in the eyes of the law, the child of the person adopting, for all purposes. Such an adoption, if consummated according to the law of the domicile, is equally effectual in any other state into which the parties may remove. The relative status thus newly acquired is ubiquitous.

For anyone particularly interested in the subject there’s more general information in this Google Book http://books.google.com.au/books?id=74W ... #PPA307,M1

Alan

Post by **AnneM** » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:51 pm

Hi Dennis

If someone is legally adopted he or she becomes legally the child of the adopting parents and all their other relationships follow from that. The exception to that is for the forbidden degrees of marriage and incest laws as far as I am aware. That is the case in Scotland at present and since adoption was permitted here. Now adopted children have the same rights to inherit etc as natural children and do not have currently have any claim to the estate of the natural parent if he or she dies without leaving a will.

We do have the occasional open adoption where the natural parents retain some contact with the child but that is relatively rare even now. It still does not give the natural parents any continuing parental rights and may not even mean that they know where the child is.

There is a new Adoption etc Act coming into force shortly in Scotland and I have to admit that I'm not yet familiar with its terms. Will have to get onto mugging that up at some point.

Hope that is helpful. People might be able to help some more if you give us some idea of the date you're talking about.

Anne

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:28 am

Hi Anne
My assumption, which may be wrong, (one should never assume!!

) was that the child was adopted post 1930, based on what Dennis had said:

The child is immediately adopted, legally, by the birth mother's parents.

Best wishes
Lesley

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:07 am

Lesley, that is correct the adopted child was born post-1930.

dennis