Including Adoption

I'm revisiting a past post only because it came up again during a presentation at the Corbit Calloway Library in Odesa, Delaware. The word "adoption" isn't new to many of us while doing our family research or research for a client. But, unfortunately, it appears to be one of those words that cause confusion while some continue to conduct their own family research.

"Do I include someone who is adopted in my family tree?"
"Do I include the biological parents of my grandfather?"

My answer was yes to both, but I know some are concerned that this might offend the step-parent or the adoptive family members. For those conducting research for their own family, you must weigh its effects on all of those involved. But I reminded them that if this is a family member and you consider them family, they should be included; that was my opinion. At the same time, while most conduct their family research, their focus is directly on their "bloodline" and not the family member's title. I gave a professional research example when I came across an adopted family member (cousin, uncle, or aunt) while conducting research for a client that includes that family member. However, I do note that this family member was adopted.  I leave it up to all my clients that it is their choice to follow up on this notation and want to research more on this family member. But suppose I find that a direct family member (mother, father, or grandparent) is adopted. In that case, I feel obligated as a researcher to include the information about the biological family members. As I've always said, once my research is completed and I review everything with the client, it is up to them what they do with that information.