Tag: #52Ancestors (2015)

#52Ancestors: 2nd Great-Grandfather William Alexander McNamara, First DNA-Identified McNamara Ancestor

William Alexander McNamara

My 18th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 18 is – Where There’s a Will: Do you have an ancestor who left an interesting will? Have you used a will to solve a problem? Or, what ancestor showed a lot of will in his or her actions?

My 18th ancestor is my husband Jeff’s 2nd great-grandfather, William Alexander McNamara (1860-1929).

My research time this week has been on DNA analysis, or on the people and lines I can incorporate into the homework for my Boston University Certificate Program in Genealogical Research. I just don’t have the extra time to get more creative with my 52 Ancestors picks, so… for the “will” theme, I am going with a William who ties into my current DNA research.

About William Alexander

William Alexander McNamara has been on my radar for a handful of years, but I have not spent any significant time on the McNamara line. What I have found thus far, has been from low-hanging fruit–aside from research I did for the profile I wrote last year on his father, William Jewett McNamara. However, activity in our DNA matches has prompted me to take a closer look at William Alexander.

William Alexander McNamara was allegedly born 29 November 1860, in the new state of Oregon, to William Jewett McNamara (1834-1911) and Anna Mary Chope (1846-1917). I say allegedly, because I have not yet found or even looked for a birth record yet. William was the oldest of seven children I have identified for the couple.

He appears to have been married at least three times, with the first marriage to my husband’s 2nd great-grandmother, Hester Hemphill (1863-1941).

First DNA Match

Jeff’s paternal aunt (Aunt Greene) took both a mitochondrial DNA test and an autosomal DNA test for us back in March. The autosomal results were processed last month according to my standard procedure: testing with AncestryDNA, then transferring the raw data to GEDMatch, and finally to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). Within a few days of FTDNA processing the transfer and matches, I received an email from one of Aunt Greene’s matches (we’ll call her Cousin McNamara) asking if I might be the daughter of Aunt Greene, whom she has met, and with whom she occasionally corresponds about McNamara family history. I explained my relationship to Aunt Greene, and Cousin McNamara walked me backwards through her own family tree steering me towards who she already knew was our first common ancestor.

My husband Jeff should also in theory come up as a match to Cousin McNamara, but with less shared DNA being one further generation down the tree. However, FTDNA has not yet finished processing his autosomal transfer from AncestryDNA.

Identifying Our Most Recent Common Ancestor

Cousin McNamara and Aunt Greene’s mother (my husband’s paternal grandmother, Jean Alice Harless) had the same grandfather, William Alexander McNamara. Cousin McNamara and Grandmother Harless, however, did not have the same grandmothers. These two lines were born to two different wives. This makes Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara half-first cousins once removed.

Our paper trails and family trees indicate that William Alexander McNamara is their Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). Descending from different maternal lines, Aunt Pat and Cousin McNamara do not share a common female ancestor through William Alexander (his mother would be their first female MRCA candidate). William Alexander alone is the first ancestor Aunt Pat and Cousin McNamara have in common — hence, their MRCA.

William Alexander McNamara, MRCA
Showing the relationship between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara, and to their Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). I like to draw up these rough relationship charts (nothing fancy, just a Word doc) for my research and analysis notes.

[contentblock id=48 img=html.png]

Estimated vs. Known Relationship

Having the benefit of knowing their confirmed DNA connection, paper trail relationship, and MRCA, I took a closer look at FTDNA’s estimated relationship between the two based upon their shared DNA. With 141.64 shared Centimorgans (cM), FTDNA projected a 2nd to 3rd cousin relationship (noted in blue below). The actual relationship is flagged in red.

I should point out that I did not manually type the known relationship (noted in red below) into my kit’s Family Finder match list. Family Finder does not allow us to manually enter these relationships; we have to use a pull-down menu of options. And “half” relationships (half siblings, half 1st cousins, half 2nd cousins, etc.) are not included in the menu options. So I had to go with the closes option — 1st cousins once removed. Hopefully FTDNA will provide more fine-tuned options in the future.

Half 1C1XR through William Alexander McNamara
Match listing in Family Tree DNA’s Family Finder. The estimated relationship is in blue, with the confirmed relationship in red.

See FTDNA’s Matches Page documentation to learn more about working with your matches list, and their Known Relationship Page documentation for more details on logging and tracking known relationships with your matches.

Chasing McNamara-Chope DNA

So… cool find and relationship confirmation! But, what now?

Time to chase that shared DNA!

Identifying William Alexander McNamara as their MRCA is just a start. We know that Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara share DNA inherited from William Alexander, and therefore also from his own parents and his own ancestors. Ideally, we want to be able to identify which pieces of DNA they inherited from each of William Alexander’s parents and each of their ancestors.

Identifying Sizable Shared Segments

To being this long process, we have to first identify each separate chromosome segment on which Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara match. Well, really, each matching segment of a decent length. Most genetic genealogists recommend analyzing matching segments of 7 cM or longer in length, primarily focusing on the largest matching segments. The ISOGG Wiki recommends segments of 15 cM or more, if one is trying to identify and establish a [previously unknown] genealogical connection. But since we already know the genealogical connection between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara, I am focusing on segments of 7 cM or more.

FTDNA’s Family Finder chromosome browser is essential for doing this with your FTDNA matches. By doing a chromosome browser comparison between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara, I can see exactly where they share the same DNA–by reviewing each chromosome, and noting which segments they have in common on each chromosome. The two following screenshots are different views of that shared chromosome data: the first one being a table view, the second being the actual visual chromosome browser view. Both show you every bit of DNA data they have in common, from tiny segments that probably won’t be much help, to larger segments on which I will want to focus first. The red arrows show those largest matching segments, the green arrows are smaller but are still within that recommended 7 cM threshold for comparisons and analysis.

MRCA William Alexander McNamara DNA Match 1
Table view of the segments shared between my husband’s aunt, and her first McNamara match. Our Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is William Alexander McNamara. Family Tree DNA, Family Finder. [Profile name has been blanked out for privacy reasons.]
MRCA William Alexander McNamara DNA Match 1
Chromosome browser view of the segments shared between my husband’s aunt, and her first McNamara match. Our Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is William Alexander McNamara. Family Tree DNA Family Finder. [Profile names have been blanked out for privacy reasons.]
See FTDNA’s Chromosome Browser Page help documentation, and watch their archived webinar to learn more about working with matches in your chromosome browser.

Identifying McNamara vs Chope DNA

In order to start identifying which segments of Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara’s shared DNA come from their MRCA William Alexander’s paternal McNamara line and which come from his maternal Chope line, we have to find more cousins to test. And we want to test cousins who ONLY descend from ONE of these two lines: a McNamara-line-only cousin (who is not also a descendant of William Alexander’s mother), and/or a Chope-line-only cousin (who is not also a descendant of William Alexander’s father).

This means finding and testing cousins from at least one generation further back in our trees, with whom we share an earlier MRCA.

I also need further verification on these DNA segments shared with Cousin McNamara–that they are indeed inherited from our MRCA William Alexander McNamara. This one-to-one comparison between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara and knowing their identified MRCA through our genealogical paper trail and trees isn’t sufficient evidence that these shared segments of DNA are all actually inherited from William Alexander. We need an additional step.

But, that process will be covered in future posts.

How Can this Help?

While it is fun to simply learn about and play with autosomal DNA, I do not have unlimited spare time or money to justify the expenses and time simply for the fun of it. Like all genealogy research and expenses and time, there needs to be a point (beyond lifelong continuous learning) to my efforts. These efforts need to help me answer questions about our family history, and need to help me verify (confirm or refute) facts about our family history.

Finding McNamara vs. Chope Clues

So what exactly are the benefits of including DNA analysis in my research?

  • The ability to prove or disprove a genetic relationship with known relationships.
  • The ability to identify additional previously unknown cousins who might be able to help me grow my own tree and break through brick walls, by identifying new ancestors and collateral relationships.
  • The ability to identify new cousins with an interest in the same family lines, with whom I can collaborate on researching our common lines.

Source List

#52Ancestors: 2nd Great-Uncle Juvenal Joseph Nieto, Trying to Prosper Amid WWI Butte Mining Town Turmoil

During World War I there were three registrations. The first, on June 5, 1917, was for all men between the ages of 21 and 31. The second, on June 5, 1918, registered those who attained age 21 after June 5, 1917. (A supplemental registration was held on August 24, 1918, for those becoming 21 years old after June 5, 1918. This was included in the second registration.) The third registration was held on September 12, 1918, for men age 18 through 45.

My 17th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 17 is – Prosper. Which ancestor has a rags-to-riches story? Which ancestor prospered despite the odds?

My 17th  ancestor is my 2nd great-uncle, Juvenal Joseph Nieto (1898-1978).

Uncle Juvenal came to the U.S., I imagine, like so many other young immigrants, with the hope of prospering — of building a new life, of making a better life for his parents and siblings, of starting a family of his own. My branch of the family says that our Compean / Sanches / Nieto / Robledo family lost everything in the Mexican Revolution. Juvenal came looking for work, for a new start.

About Juvenal

I never knew Juvenal, nor do I recall ever hearing his name growing up. But his sister Maria Hermalinda Nieto (my great-grandmother Nana) died when I was just a toddler, and Juvenal died when I was just 8 years old. I didn’t even know OF a Juvenal until I found him living with our extended family in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California on the 1920 U.S. Census. So his name became one I regularly searched, in hopes of finding records pertaining to my Nieto family line.

Juvenal Joseph Nieto was born in 1898 Mexico. I do not yet know the actual date, as I have not found his Mexico baptism or civil registration record of birth. Juvenal’s WWI draft registration claims he was born 15 February 1898, but his death certificate claims 27 March 1898. Both simply indicate Mexico as his place of birth, although it is very likely that he was born — like so many of his family members for generations — in or near the municipality of Armadillo de los Infante, in the state of San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Montana

I first found Juvenal’s World War I draft registration card in 2003, when it repeatedly came up in searches I conducted on Ancestry. But I initially ignored that hit, because it listed a Montana residence for my 2nd great uncle Juvenal. Montana couldn’t be right. Juvenal came from Mexico. And once he immigrated to the U.S., he settled and lived in Los Angeles County, California with other members of his family. Or so I thought.

When that pesky search hit wouldn’t go away, I finally took a look at the actual digitized record (I NEVER automatically dismiss record hits anymore!), because Juvenal just isn’t a very common name — even among Mexican males.

What I found in the digitized record surprised and delighted me.

It WAS my same Juvenal. And he indeed lived in Montana when he registered for the draft on 12 September 1918. On the draft card, Juvenal identified his mother Mrs. Aurelia Compian [Compean] of San Luis [Potosi], Mexico as his nearest living relative. Aurelia is my 2nd great-grandmother, and our family did originate in San Luis Potosi. No chance of being wrong here. Definitely my Juvenal!

Juvenal Nieto, WWI Draft Registration Card
Juvenal Nieto, WWI Draft Registration Card, dated 12 September 1918. Ancestry.com. U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005.

RESEARCH TIP: Mexican Surnames

It is interesting to note that Juvenal identified his mother’s name as Aurelia Compian [Compean] — not Nieto, which was her husband’s surname. Compean was Aurelia’s paternal surname (apellido paterno). Traditional Mexico naming conventions assign dual surnames to a child: their father’s paternal surname, followed by their mother’s paternal surname. Thus, according to tradition, Juvenal’s name was Juvenal Joseph Nieto Compean. Traditionally, women don’t ever go by their husband’s name in Mexico — they retain their original dual surnames even after marriage. So Juvenal identifying his mother’s surname as Compean instead of Nieto was traditionally accurate.

According to the World War I draft card, Juvenal worked as a miner for the North Butte Mining Company in Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana. He is described as 20 years old, white, a non-declarant alien, of medium height and slender build, with black eyes and hair. While the draft card doesn’t state it, Juvenal was still single at this time. Juvenal lists Butte as his residence, and Speculator as his place of employment.

Speculator? We’ll come back to that.

Leaving Home

Juvenal’s son-in-law and I chatted on Facebook a couple days ago about the post I just wrote on Juvenal’s father, in which I also mention Juvenal. The conversation focused on the draft card and the Montana mines. Juvenal’s son-in-law said that Juvenal left home at a young age to work in the mines. I am not sure if that was directly for the Montana mines, or if he first worked the mines in Mexico.

The 1920 U.S. Census indicates that Juvenal immigrated to the U.S. in 1915, but I have not been able to find a border record for his initial entry into the U.S. — only for a much later year, when traveling between the two countries.

Juvenal’s older sister Maria (my great-grandmother) had immigrated in 1915 with her husband and two oldest children. I have a border entry record for Maria and her infant son Refugio (although not yet for Maria’s husband Jose and daughter Guadalupe). According to the draft registration card for Maria’s own husband (my great-grandfather), Maria and Joe were already living in Long Beach, California by 12 June 1918.

Butte Mining & Immigrants

The discovery of copper ore in the 1800s — necessary to electrify America — transformed Butte, Montana from a frontier mining town to “‘the Richest Hill on Earth,’ the most lucrative copper mining region in the world.” [1] By 1917, mining operations were booming due to the increased wartime demand for copper. Immigrants made up a considerable portion of the mining labor population.

For the better part of four decades now, Irish, Cornish, Welsh, Serb, Italian, Finnish, Croatian, and Mexican workers had been pouring in to work “the richest hill in the world,” and in the process they turned Butte into a kind of Rocky Mountain Pittsburgh. (Laskin, loc. 1481)[2]

“In early 1917, Butte was a unionized industrial city with a population of 91,000 people. Home to one of the largest mining operations in the world, the abundance of employment opportunities drew workers from every corner of the globe. “No Smoking” signs posted in the mines were printed in 16 different languages. More than 30 languages were spoken among the city streets.” [3]

This is where my Mexico-born 2nd great-uncle Juvenal came to work, at least by June of 1918, when he registered for the draft.

WWI Draft Registration

On 06 April 1917, the United States declared war on Germany, joining the allies of Britain, France, and Russia. Because our armed forces were so depleted, Congress instituted a draft for the first time since the Civil War.

“During World War I there were three registrations. The first, on June 5, 1917, was for all men between the ages of 21 and 31. The second, on June 5, 1918, registered those who attained age 21 after June 5, 1917. (A supplemental registration was held on August 24, 1918, for those becoming 21 years old after June 5, 1918. This was included in the second registration.) The third registration was held on September 12, 1918, for men age 18 through 45.”[4]

Juvenal participated in the third draft registration in 1918.

The first draft registration, on 05 June 1917, was known as National Registration Day.

The Speculator Mine

Now back to Juvenal’s place of employment — Speculator.

Speculator was the name of a copper mine, which has become quite infamous in mining history. Due to the disaster of 1917.

The Disaster of 1917

On the night of 8 June 1917, fire broke out 2,300 feet down in the Granite Mountain shaft of the mine, caused when an employee’s carbide lamp mistakenly ignited a frayed electrical cable. Fire, smoke, and poisonous gas spread quickly. By the time rescue operations ceased on June 16th, 168 men had lost their lives, dubbing the event the worst disaster in Montana history and one of the worst metal mining disasters in the world.

The mine closed for good in 1923.

Anti-War & Labor Hotbed

Butte, like many other mining towns that relied heavily upon large numbers of new immigrant laborers, became a hotbed for antiwar protests leading up to and during the First World War. Allegiances were questioned, primarily among European immigrants who hailed from homelands on the enemy side of the war. Some European immigrant families were torn between wanting to support and fight for their new country, yet knowing that would mean defeat or even death for family members back in the old country — brother versus brother.

At the same time, unions were protesting the dangerous deplorable conditions forced upon mining laborers. And in the face of war, many such labor sentiments were branded as un-American, even treasonous.

The Speculator mine disaster of 1917 happened just three days after National Registration Day, the first of the three WWI drafts.

A seven-month long strike ensued. Federal troops were sent in to restore order.

Was Juvenal There?

Was my 2nd great-uncle Juvenal Nieto present at the time of the Speculator mine disaster, the ensuing strike, and the crackdown against the labor movement? Was he a target of anti-immigrant sentiments, even though he came from Mexico rather than the countries with whom we were at war? Did he have to make his way through federal troops, and striking miners, just to earn a living? Did he join the striking miners?

These questions are impossible to answer at this point in my research.

Juvenal didn’t register for the draft until 12 June 1918, and that draft registration card is the first and only record I find so far placing Juvenal in Butte, Montana. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Juvenal did NOT work and live in Butte at the time of the 1917 mining disaster. He could have been there.

Probably the only chance I have at verifying if Juvenal was working for the mine at the time of the disaster, is to search for some mention of him in the mining company records, which are held by the Montana Historical Society. Perhaps the name of a 19 year old Mexican laborer might appear in some sort of roster, financial, or business record?

Even if Juvenal had not yet been there for the 1917 disaster, he would have heard about it upon arrival and must have thought about it every single time he went down into the Speculator mine to work. Wondering each day if he would make it back out above ground after his shift.

Sources

Sources Cited

  1. IndependentITVS. http://itvs.org/films/butte-america.
  2. Laskin, David. 2010. The Long Way Home: An American Journey from Ellis Island to the Great War. Kindle edition. HarperCollins e-books.
  3. The Granite Mountain Speculator Mine Memorial. 2010. “History: Intro.” The Granite Mountain Speculator Mine Memorial. http://minememorial.org/history/intro.htm.
  4. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. n.d. “World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, M1509.” National Archives. http://www.archives.gov/research/military/ww1/draft-registration/.

Sources Consulted

  • Gutfeld, Arnon. 1969. “The Speculator Disaster in 1917: Labor Resurgence at Butte, Montana.” Arizona and the West 11 (1): 27–38.
  • Independent Lens | BUTTE AMERICA | Film Clip #2 | PBS. 2009. Independent Lens. https://youtu.be/r_4ofHTXYnA.

[contentblock id=46 img=html.png]

#52Ancestors: Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963), Lived to Be 105 or 100 or 95 Years of Age

Maria Aurelia CompeanMy 16th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 16 is – Live Long. Time to feature a long-lived ancestor. Any centenarians in the family?

My 16th ancestor is my 2nd great-grandmother Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963), who lived to the age of 105 years. Or so my family has always thought. Other records place her at 100 years and 95 years old.

Aurelia was one of at least three daughters born to Jose Santiago Compean (b. abt. 1840) and Maria Eutimia Sanches (b. abt. 1834). Her full name was Maria Aurelia Compean Sanches — with Maria being her Saint/Biblical first name, Aurelia her common first name, Compean her paternal surname, and Sanches her maternal surname (see last week’s post about Mexican naming conventions). U.S. records often identify her by the last name of Nieto, the surname of her husband, my 2nd great-grandfather.

Age Discrepancies

Why the discrepancy and uncertainty about Aurelia’s age?

As Reported by Her Children

Aurelia’s children and grandchildren claim she was born in 1858. Whichever of them reported her death on 17 February 1963 gave an 01 January 1858 date of birth to officials for Aurelia, and they also ran an obituary in the Long Beach, California Independent proudly crediting her with 105 years of age. The death record info I have is just the transcribed entry from the California Death Index — which has Aurelia’s birthplace wrong (it lists Maine instead of Mexico!). I am still waiting on the death certificate I ordered from Los Angeles County in March.

Compean Maria Aurelia Obituary 1963-02-19
Obituary from 19 February 1963. Ancestry.com. Independent (Long Beach, California) [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2007.
Maria Aurelia Compean Scanned Obituary Clipping
Same clipped obituary, from family files. Independent. Long Beach, California, United States Of America.
Aurelia Compean, California Death Index
California Death Index, 1940-1997. Index entry for Aurelia Compean. Index transcribers have her birth place incorrectly identified as Main instead of Mexico. Source: Ancestry.com.

As Reported on the Census

The 1920 U.S. Census and the 1930 U.S. Census estimate a birth year of 1868, based upon the age reported (52 and 64 respectively). Not ages that support the 1858 birth year noted on the California Death Index or in her obituary. I have not yet been successful at finding Aurelia on the 1940 U.S. Census.

Robledo, Nieto, Sanches, Perez Households - 1920 Census - Long Beach
Robledo, Nieto, Sanches, Perez Households. 1920 US Census, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Courtesy of Ancestry.com. Aurelia is highlighted in yellow, line 21. Click image for a larger view.
Juvenal Nieto and Aurelia Compean, 1930 US Census
Juvenal Nieto household, with Aurelia Compean. 1930 U.S. Census, Glendale, Los Angeles County, California. Courtesy of Ancestry.com. Click image for larger view.

As Reported on Her Baptism Record

Aurelia was baptized 10 January 1864 in San Nicolas Tolentino, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The baptism transcription index card says she was 10 days old at the time, which would make her born 01 January 1864 or 31 December 1863 — depending on how that 10 days was calculated. Either way, this record does not jive with the 1858 birth year claimed by our family, nor does it correspond with the estimated 1868 birth year calculated in the censuses.

Aurelia Compean baptism entry in transcribed index. Mexico, Select Baptisms, 1560-1950. Source: FamiilySearch.

As Reported on Her Border Crossing Record

The border crossing record for Aurelia, estimates her birth year as 1864. Aurelia was admitted into the U.S. on 14 March 1919, in Laredo, Texas, destined for Long Beach, California. The age noted on this record matches what her baptism record age would calculate out to in 1919.

Aurelia Compean Border Crossing Card
Aurelia Compean Border Crossing Card, 1919, Ancestry.com. Click image for larger view.

My Hunch

My suspicion is that 1864 is the accurate year, since it is the year most contemporaneously reported at the time closest to her actual birth (10 days after her birth, at her baptism), and the year that was likely self-reported by Aurelia to (Spanish-speaking?) immigration officials at the time of her border crossing.  Besides, if she were born in 1858 as her family claims, that means Aurelia’s parents waited six years to have her baptized — something that would never have been acceptable to practicing Catholics. I mentally noted that issue when I first came across her baptism info years ago, and it never sat right with me.

The Census records are close, with an 1868 estimated birth, but somehow I doubt Aurelia is the one who talked to the Census takers — it seems more likely her children would have done so. Although I would think that Aurelia — who did not work outside of the home — would have been present as well.

Although my extended family probably doesn’t want to hear that “Little Grandma” did not live to be 105 years old, I think that 1858 date is the most unlikely of birth years noted for Aurelia, since it was information provided by older children upon Aurelia’s death. Also because I can’t imagine her parents waited six-years to baptize their daughter in a staunch Mexican catholic home and community.

Next Steps

But, I still have more digging to do:

  • Locate the actual microfilmed baptism record. If it is included in the Mexico Catholic Church records that have already been digitized, it has not yet been indexed by FamilySearch.
  • Investigate if a Civil Registration record exists for her birth. Civil Registration went into effect in Mexico in 1859. If Aurelia was born 1858, there won’t be a record. But if she was born after 1858, there is a chance a record exists, although Civil Registration did not become strictly enforced until 1867.
  • Locate the microfilmed copy of her 1883 marriage record, since the Catholic Church usually noted ages for each spouse. If it is included in the Mexico Catholic Church records that have already been digitized, it has not yet been indexed by FamilySearch.
  • Locate a Civil Registration record for her 1883 marriage.

I have never found any evidence that Aurelia applied for a Social Security card or for naturalization. If she had, those applications would be written in her own hand (or verbally reported by her to someone who filled out the applications on her behalf), and would include her self-reported birth year.

Once I verify the records outlined above, I will update my database, trees, research log, and the Snapshot box below. Until then, I will let my extended family have their claim to 105 years.

Still…living to “just” 95 years old is pretty darn admirable. I hope Dad inherited her genes!

[contentblock id=5 img=html.png]

#52Ancestors: Fourth great-grandfather Jose Victoriano Compean exemplifies Mexican naming conventions

Compean Coat of ArmsMy 15th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 15 is — How Do You Spell That? What ancestor do you imagine was frequently asked that? Which ancestor did you have a hard time finding because of an unusual name?

My 15th ancestor is my 4th great-grandfather, Jose Victoriano Compean (b. abt. 1803). Jose Victoriano is the oldest identified ancestor in my paternal Compean line. I do not know much about Jose Victoriano — not even where in Mexico he was born, nor the names of his parents or siblings.

His name isn’t difficult to spell or to pronounce. It is not an unusual name for a Mexican-born male.  So why him for this particular challenge? Because of how difficult Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research, and how easy Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research. My 4th great-grandfather Jose Victoriano Compean and his family are a very good representation of this dichotomy.

Mexican Surnames

When dealing with Mexican names one must be mindful of the traditional Spanish naming convention of using dual surnames. In Mexico, the dual surname consists of both parents’ surnames: the paternal surname (apellido paterno), followed by the maternal surname (apellido materno). This means that Mexican wives do not take on the surname of their husbands upon marriage. In Mexican records, they remain identified by their maiden names (paternal, maternal).

So within the traditional Mexico household, there can be at least three sets of surnames for a single family: the husband’s dual surnames, the wife’s dual surnames, and a combination of their surnames used as dual surnames for each child.

Upon immigration to the U.S., all sorts of different surname scenarios end up in the records. Often the wife is recorded now just under a single surname — that of her husband. Sometimes a male is recorded under just a single surname (a crapshoot if it’s the paternal or maternal one). Both of which can make it difficult to try to find a paper trail back in Mexico.

Mexican Given Names

It wasn’t until a few years ago that I became aware of another traditional naming convention — multiple first names. I thought that the string of names found on ancestral records was a first name with one, two, or sometimes three middle names. Not the case with Mexican names. Mexican naming conventions do not employ the concept of a middle name.

Often the first of the given names is in honor of a saint or biblical figure, such as Maria/Mary or Jose/Joseph — which seem to be the two most common such names among my ancestors and their children.  According to the FamilySearch Wiki, “In Mexico the child was usually called by the second or third name given at baptism, especially if the first name was María or José.”

Names of Jose Victoriano’s Family

Reviewing the names found in records for my 4th great-grandfather’s children and grandchildren exemplifies these traditional Mexican naming conventions.

I sometimes find Jose Victoriano Compean identified just as Victoriano Compean. I also find his paternal surname spelled Compian (including on records for his children). What I have not found so far is a record referencing his dual surnames, which is very odd for early to mid-1800s Mexico church records.

His Wife

Jose Victoriano Compean married Maria Ignacia Martines, my 4th great-grandmother. Like with Victoriano, I do not yet find Maria Ignacia recorded with two surnames in the traditional Mexican fashion. Only with the single surname, which I assume is her paternal surname, particularly since the name Martines/Martinez was usually included as part of her children’s surnames in church records. Sometimes Maria Ignacia is found under the spelling of Maria Ygnacia, with her paternal surname spelled with a “z”, as Martinez, and also as just Ygnacia Martinez (no Maria).

I do not yet know when and where Jose Victoriano and Maria Ignacia married. It seems likely they were married shortly before 1840, the estimated birth year of their first baptized child. I think it also likely they married at San Isabel church, where three of their four children were baptized, in the municipality of Armadillo de los Infante, San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Santa Isabel Church San Luis Potosi

Their Children

So far I have identified four children for Victoriano and Ignacia.

  1. Jose Santiago Compean (b. abt. 1840). My 3rd great grandfather. Also found under Jose Santiago Compean Martinez, and just Santiago Compean.
  2. Maria Felisitas Compean (b. abt. 1843).  Also found under Maria Felisitas Compean Martinez.
  3. Jose Calisto Compean (b. abt. 1848 ). Also found under Jose Calisto Compean Martinez.
  4. Jose Cipriano Compean (b. abt. 1857). Also found under Jose Cipriano Compean Martinez.

Although Victoriano and Ignacia had at least four children, in this blog post, I am only focusing on one of those children. My 3rd great-grandfather Jose Santiago Compean is the oldest child I have identified. Known by our family as just Santiago, I learned of this ancestor’s name when my father contacted the cemetery at which Santiago’s daughter Aurelia is buried. Aurelia’s burial records identify her parents as Santiago Compean and Eutimia Sanches. Further research into Mexican church records revealed Santiago and Eutimia’s full given names — with the traditional Jose and Maria.

Maria Eutimia Sanches Nieto (b. 1835), my 3rd great-grandmother, married Jose Santiago Compean on 14 September 1859 at San Isabel church in Armadillo de los Infante, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The same church where both were baptized as infants. Eutimia can also be found under just her paternal surname, Sanches.

Their Grandchildren

I have identified three children born to Santiago and Eutimia, all daughters.

  1. Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963). My 2nd great-grandmother. Also found under Aurelia Compean.
  2. Maria Francisca Compean Sanchez (b. abt. 1862).
  3. Maria Pilar Compean (b. abt. 1865).

One of Aurelia’s daughters became my great-grandmother, Maria Hermalinda Nieto Compean (1887-1974). Maria was the only first name I ever knew for my Nana — no one in our family ever knew her as Hermalinda. So when I first discovered that her mother Aurelia’s full first name was Maria Aurelia, and that her grandmother Eutimia’s full first name was actually Maria Eutimia, I naively assumed each mother had simply passed down her own first name to these daughters, and chose to go by a middle name.

Why the Dichotomy?

I mentioned at the beginning of this post the dichotomy of how difficult Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research, and how easy Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research.

Because of the inconsistencies in how our Mexican ancestors’ names are recorded on various records and transcriptions (for both Mexico and U.S. records), it can make identifying which type of surname is being used — the maternal, paternal, or for females even their husband’s surname — a bit of a nightmare. Even in FamilySearch, transcriptions of the same records can inconsistently use given names and surnames for the same individuals — I usually find this occurring in different indexing projects for the same records.

On the other hand, knowing how this dual-surnames convention works among Mexican records, researchers can immediately identify the surnames of an ancestor’s parents. For a female ancestor, that would be immediate identification of her father’s surname and her mother’s surname — something that in Anglo records we usually cannot readily identify if a female ancestor is referenced only by her married surname. For Anglo male ancestors, we usually assume that ancestor shares the same surname as his father. But in Mexican records, we often are able to also identify the paternal surname (what we call a maiden name) for that male ancestor’s mother.

Understanding now about multiple first names, especially saints’ names, when I see a record for a Mexican-born ancestor that simply uses the first name Maria/Mary or Jose/Joseph, I immediately begin to look for clues to a more complete given name.

But sometimes those clues are just not there, and I end up with a brick wall ancestor like my great-grandfather Jose/Joseph Robledo (1875-1937) — who immigrated to the U.S. with his wife Maria Hermalinda Nieto Compean and their two oldest children. Jose or Joseph is the only name by which his children or grandchildren ever knew him. No records found identify a second first name. And yet, according to that FamilySearch Wiki article, Mexican males rarely went by Jose as a first name.

Among my fellow Hispanic genealogists, the listservs and forums are packed with folks lamenting about how difficult it is to make Mexican naming conventions fit into the confines of predominantly Anglo-designed genealogy databases, such as Ancestry Member Trees. It is like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. Ancestry.com has a field titled “First and Middle Name” and one titled “Last Name” (singular). Do we put the full dual surname in the Last Name field? Or is that going to mess up possible searches and hints? FamilySearch, who has a more global focus, handles these field names better in its Family Tree — “First Names” (instead of first and middle), but still only a “Last Name” (singular) field.

As with any of our ancestors, it is critical that we genealogists take the time to learn and understand the conventions used in an ancestor’s country of origin, culture, religion, and various places of residence.

Sources Consulted

[contentblock id=44 img=html.png]

#52Ancestors: My Favorite Photo, the Only Photo of Me with My Great-Grandmother Maria (Nieto) Robledo

Maria NietoMy 14th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 14 is Favorite Photo: Who is in a favorite photo of yours? Or tell the story of the photo itself — where was it taken, what was the event?

My 14th ancestor is my great-grandmother, Maria Hermalinda Nieto (1887-1973).

Cleaning through some forgotten files last week, I came across a bunch of old photos that I had taken out of my baby books decades ago and transferred to a new scrapbook album of favorite photos that I took with me to U.C. Berkeley when I went away to college after high school. These photos were still on those 27 year old horrible adhesive album pages, removed from my scrapbook, and got misfiled years ago during one of my many moves. How I never came across these again until now, I don’t know. How I managed to never scan these photos before, I don’t know. But, I am thrilled to have made this recent discovery!  And I have since carefully removed all photos from those horrible destructive adhesive albums, and scanned them.

My Favorite Photo

Colleen Robledo and Maria Nieto
Nana with her Coco Colleen.

One of those photos is this one — my favorite photo. The ONLY photo I have with my great-grandmother, Maria (Nieto) Robledo, who died when I was just over three years old. I thought I had lost this. I was overjoyed to find it again!

My Great-Grandmother

Maria Robledo — affectionately called “Nana” by her grown children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and now great-great-grandchildren — was the paternal grandmother of my father, and she is the woman who raised him since he was a young toddler. She was a tiny little (approximately 5 foot tall) woman with a huge heart and giant presence. The name “Nana” is only ever uttered among our extended family in the most tender loving tone.

Maria outlived her husband, Jose Robledo (1875-1937), by over 35 years. The two of them lost everything back in their small San Luis Potosi, Mexico village during the Mexican Revolution, and immigrated to the United States in 1915, in hopes of beginning a new life for their young family (they had a 5 year old and a 3 month old). The family called Long Beach, California their first U.S. home, moving in with siblings and members of Nana’s extended family who had already immigrated here. Nana was widowed at about 50 years of age, but with at least six (ages 18 down to 6-1/2 years old) of their eight children still living at home. Even before Maria’s own youngest children were grown, she became mother to four of her very young grandchildren — including Dad.

Despite Jose having lived in the U.S. for almost 22 years, because the majority of his children were still so young when he died, it would be Nana who shaped and molded the American version of their family.

Why My Favorite?

So why is this photo, from among so many treasured photos from my childhood, the one I selected as my favorite?

Because this photo reminds me of the first time I remember seeing my dad cry.

And for a little 3 year old girl, seeing her strong daddy cry is a big big deal.

You see, I don’t remember the moment captured in this photo, of climbing on my Nana’s lap, teasingly trying to take her glasses off her face. My great-grandmother was a huge presence in our family and lives, yet I only have one memory of her…seeing her right before she died.

I have always had a vivid memory of looking in through a window, to Nana and Dad standing on the other side of that window, and my infant brother, Mom, and I all waving at them. That’s it. My one memory of my great-grandmother. Mom tells me that was a hospital visit, shortly before Nana died. We little ones either weren’t allowed in to see Nana, or Mom and Dad just thought it best we didn’t go inside. So we found Nana’s hospital room window, and waited outside of it, while Dad went inside and wheeled her up to the window so she could see us. I think I remember blowing kisses and laughing. No doubt, Mom tried to make a fun loving game of it for us, seeing which of us could blow Nana the most kisses.

I don’t think we ever saw her again.

Shortly after that visit, I remember being at home, and peaking inside my parents’ bedroom. Dad was sitting on the edge of their bed…crying. I had never seen him cry before.

It was so upsetting to me that I ran down the hall to find Mom, to tell her something was wrong, because my daddy was crying. He never cried. I distinctly remember Mom taking me in her arms, and explaining to me that Dad was crying because he was sad, because Nana had died. I wasn’t sure at that age what it meant for someone to die. All I knew was, it had to be something really really sad. Because my daddy was crying.

Because he had just lost the only mother he ever really knew, his grandmother.

Seeing Dad Cry Again

The next time I remember seeing Dad cry? When I graduated high school.

When he gave me a silver dollar that he’d been holding on to for a long time. The silver dollar that Nana had given to him when he graduated high school. This strong immigrant woman, who had started a life all over again for her family in a new country, never knew a time without financial struggles in her new country. My grandfather and his siblings grew up poor. Dad and the other grandkids raised by Nana grew up poor. It meant a lot, literally and symbolically, for Nana to save a silver dollar.

But Nana knew that education was the key to her family overcoming being poor.

Dad was the first of their family to get a college education. I can only imagine what joy it brought Nana to see one of her grandchildren go to college!

And giving me that silver dollar made Dad cry. Again.

Now, of course, as he’s grown older, my dad — who has always been a big softie — cries often. They are almost always tears of happiness.

[contentblock id=3 img=html.png]

#52Ancestors: Different DNA, but Same Family History — My Parents

My 13th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 13 is — Different. What ancestor seems to be your polar opposite? What ancestor did something that seems completely different than what they “should” have done or what you would have done?

Colleen Mom Dad Wedding
My parents, on their wedding day.

My 13th ancestors are my Mom and Dad, with whom I have (as far as I know) completely different DNA.

Since my last two posts have focused on the new search for my biological family, I thought it appropriate to focus on my parents (my real parents) for this post.

Background

As a refresher, I was put up for adoption at birth, in a public closed adoption in Los Angeles County, California. I am the poster child for everything that can and should be right about adoption. Just a few months after I was born (I had been hospitalized for a while due to being two-months preemie), I was adopted by my parents — my real parents (I hate when people call them adoptive parents).

These are the only parents I have ever known. The parents who really really wanted me. The parents who have loved, nurtured, protected, guided, and encouraged me my entire life. The parents who have caught me every time I have fallen, figurative and literally, then helped me get back up on my feet again.

I mentioned in my previous posts about my adoption, and I have always told family and friends, that finding my birth parents has never been and never will be a big deal to me. I don’t feel a sense of missing identity. I don’t feel I was ever unwanted (my birth parents were just kids who had no business raising a kid). I don’t feel that I have been cheated out of my family history. I do know adoptees who do experience these feelings. I just am not one of them. I was blessed with the best parents and the best family possible. My childhood and adult life are filled with happy cherished memories.

Oh, and, despite what my parents say and my siblings say — I know that I am my parents’ favorite child! Yeah, I realize that my parents can’t ever actually admit that, or it would make them seem like bad parents, choosing a favorite kid. But I know I am their favorite kid. And I have never had a problem pointing that fact out to my siblings.

Nor have I refrained from searching for my birth parents due to some fear of hurting my real parents’ feelings, or of possibly being rejected by my birth parents. My real parents know that I love them, that I will always love them, and that they will always be my parents. My birth parents are simply the egg and sperm that made me; it won’t hurt me if they don’t want to meet and have a friendship with me.

So this post is really just about taking a breather from the whirlwind birth-mom-journey I got plunged into less than one week ago, and sharing the love I have for my real parents.

Colleen Robledo as Toddler with Mom
Me as a toddler with Mom, in my grandparents’ pool. We spent a lot of time in that pool as little kids! The man is not my dad; he was a friend of my parents. Dad was probably taking the photo.

Why Adoption?

My parents tried to have children naturally after they were married, but Mom’s doctor determined that she couldn’t get pregnant. They decided that biology would not prevent them from being parents, and they filed for adoption. Both wanted the first baby to be a little girl (lucky for me!). They have told me many times about that moment when they received “the call” congratulating them on becoming parents, and asking them to come bring their baby home.

From my baby book and childhood photo albums, it is obvious my parents thought the sun and moon revolved around me. My brother’s baby book and photo albums have far fewer photos…just sayin’ :-).

Adoption Poem from Dear Abby
A famous adoption poem that Mom clipped from Dear Abby when I was a baby, to put in my baby book.
Adoption Poem by Mom
A poem that Mom wrote to me when I was a baby or little girl.

Mom and Dad had already started the paperwork to adopt a second child, when Mom found out she was pregnant. Shortly after, my brother was born. I call it an accident, my brother likes to call it a miracle. I tell him that I was chosen, and he was just a “whoops!” kid.

After my brother was born, Mom and Dad made sure that no further accidents could happen.

Then six years later, we as a family decided that we wanted a little sister. So my parents adopted my sister, shortly before her third birthday. She was also a closed public adoption.

Our family was a bit unusual, with the biological child sandwiched between two adoptees. So much so that a documentary maker did a film about my brother (don’t know whatever happened to that film), chronicling his experiences as the lone biological child in the family. You can bet I was none to happy about someone wanting to star my brother in a documentary. I was, after all, going to be a future Broadway star.

I think that little bout of jealousy (one of many many many such fits of jealousy) only hits the point home that we were a perfectly normal imperfect family, despite none of us kids being biologically related. We fought like normal siblings, we played like normal siblings, and no other kids were allowed to mess with our siblings. We all sassed and disobeyed our parents, and our parents punished us all equally for any bad behavior. They also loved us all equally (well, except for me being their favorite).

Robledo Family, Camping, Late 1970s
One of many family photos, from one of many summer family camping trips. This must have been before Dad got a camera with a timer, because he is taking the photo. And I think it’s the late 1970s, shortly after adopting my little sister (on my lap).
Robledo Flanagan Family - ca 1984
Our immediate family, 1985, on a family summer vacation camping trip. I can tell the date by my hair and outfit, which I sported my freshman year of high school. Why do most of us look miserable? Because my parents would make us pose over and over for the camera timer to capture family photos…on every summer family camping trip.

Family History vs. Genetic History

When I refer to my family history, I am distinctly referring to my real family. Because it is family history. Genealogy is the pursuit, the study and the profession. Family history is more personal…at least for me. Now that I’ve added my bio parents and my own autosomal DNA into the mix, I refer to that as my genetic history.

I know adoptees are all over the board on this. Some research both their real and bio families’ histories. Some do just their real family history. Some do just their bio family history, because they insist this is their history. To each his own.

But to me, my family history focus will always be on my real family.

Because it is the people (the ancestors and relatives) from this family, my family, that shaped the extended family universe that I have known my whole life — my great-grandparents, grandparents, parents, siblings, great aunts, great uncles, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Their life experiences, their culture, their traditions, their memories, their success or failure as parents and spouses, their hopes and dreams. Their sense of love and sense of family. I may not have the same DNA that predetermined physical appearance (although people always say I look like my Mom..ha!), medical history, or particular traits (THANK GOD I could not inherit Mom’s tone deafness gene!), but that stuff doesn’t matter to me.

Family and family history are not defined by biology.

Colleen Robledo & Dad Graduation
Preparing to leave for my undergraduate graduation ceremony. Dad was the first in his family to graduate college.
Colleen Robledo and Mom
Drinking and dining with Mom. Thanksgiving about 6 years ago.
Colleen Robledo and Mom - Bridal Shower
With Mom, at my bridal shower in a Victorian tea house.
Colleen Robledo Bride and Mom
Mom looking on while I touched up my hair and makeup in between my wedding ceremony and the reception. Shopping for wedding dresses with her is one of the most memorable experiences of my life.
Colleen Robledo Bride and Dad Aisle
Dad walking me down the aisle, something he dreamed of since I was a baby. I knew he’d lose it (crying here). I kept squeezing his arm telling him that I loved him.
Robledo Colleen Bride and Dad Aisle.jpg
My very favorite photo of Dad and me, before my wedding ceremony. He was still pretty emotionally with-it at this point. Dad is a model husband, father, and grandfather. I am blessed to have married someone like him.

#52Ancestors: Beginning the Search for My Birth Mother, with Whom I Share Half the Same DNA

Colleen Robledo, Baby
Me at just over one year old, four months after my legal adoption.

My 12th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 12 is — Same. What ancestor is a lot like you? What ancestor do you have a lot in common? Same name? Same home town?

My 12th ancestor is my birth mom, with whom I should share half of the same DNA.

I have known my entire life that I was adopted. My parents always told me, and celebrated that fact. My birth announcement reads: “I wasn’t expected, I was selected!” Mom says they would tell me that word long before I could understand its meaning, and then they explained it to me when I was old enough to start understanding. I was put up for adoption at birth, and came home to my parents a few months later, after a very brief stay in a foster home and a hospital incubator due to being born two months premature.

This post is particularly timely, because Monday was the anniversary of the day I came home with my parents. My legal adoption became final six months later.

What I Know About My Birth Parents

My adoption was public, through the County of Los Angeles. I am told I was born at St. Anne’s home for unwed mothers, in Los Angeles, California. In California that means my original birth certificate, with my birth parents’ names, was sealed. All I know about my birth parents is contained within the following letter that was given to my parents when they brought me home on 23 March 1970.

My birth mom was just 16, and my birth father was just 19. They wanted me to be raised in a two-parent married Catholic home, by parents who could better care for me and who of course would love me.

According to the letter, it appears I was predestined to love the outdoors and hiking!

The question I have always wanted an answer to is… if they were 5 feet 4 inches and 5 feet 10 inches tall, how the heck did I end up only 5 feet 1 inch tall??? I should be a few inches taller.

Colleen Robledo, Adoption Letter
The letter that accompanied me home with my parents on 23 March 1970. Our adoption became legal six months later.

Why Haven’t I Cared to Look?

As I mentioned before, public adoptions in California require that the original birth certificate and records be sealed. An adoptee is allowed to request access to these, once of majority age. Yet even then, a judge has to agree to release identifiable information (birth parent names and details); an adoptee is only guaranteed non-identifiable info.

I am well past majority age, yet I have never bothered with the cumbersome process of requesting my records. Because it just hasn’t ever really mattered to me. I can honestly say that I have no curiosity about my birth parents, no big desire to know their names, and don’t feel any sense of missing identity. I have always felt incredibly loved, and a powerful blood-like bond to my immediate and extended family — including our ancestors. Quite simply, I have the best parents in the world. I am the poster child for how adoption is supposed to work.

What is Different Now?

While I still confidently say that I don’t care if I ever find out the identities of my birth parents, something has changed. What has changed is a growing sense of compassion for what my birth mother went through 45 years ago. I attribute it to just getting older, having helped raise a child (my oldest niece), and becoming a wife and stepmom five and a half years ago. Because these feelings never really crossed my mind until a handful of years ago.

I have come to recognize and respect that putting me up for adoption was probably the most difficult decision my birth mother ever made. It was an incredibly brave selfless act. Every December 20th on my birthday, I imagine that my birth mom is thinking about the baby girl she gave up, wondering if she did the right thing, if her baby was safe, if her baby was loved. I can’t imagine carrying a child and nurturing it in the womb, and then having the emotional strength to give that baby up to others. Having grown up to a point where I can truly appreciate that sacrifice, I would like to be able to assure her that her baby was and is loved as much as is humanly possible. I was blessed with the very best parents and family possible.

And then there’s that whole genetic genealogy thing…

Until very recently, I have not jumped on the genealogy DNA craze. Mostly because my family history is not in my DNA. But early last year, I caved and tested Dad through AncestryDNA in the hopes of breaking through my Robledo surname brick wall. But at RootsTech and FGS last month, I learned about how DNA was being used by adoptees to find birth families. That caught my curiosity. I have always loved solving puzzles. This sounded fun, like a great learning opportunity, and like a great case study to put under my research skills belt.  Getting introduced to and hooked on new friend Michael Lacopo’s Hoosier Daddy? blog intensified this interest.

So last week, I took an autosomal test from AncestryDNA. And started a biological family tree.

My Next Steps

Aside from impatiently waiting over the next 4 to 8 weeks for AncestryDNA to process my autosomal DNA results, which I will of course also upload to Family Tree DNA and GEDmatch, I have some next plans of action already in place.

Colleen Robledo, DNA Testing
Taking my AncestryDNA autosomal test last week.
  • I joined the DNA Detectives group on Facebook last week.
  • I just enrolled in the May 8th session of the Working with Autosomal DNA online course by DNA Adoption.
  • I plan to enlist the services of my new DNA consultant friend Angie Bush, a brilliant molecular genealogist, to teach me what to do with this data, and how to calculate relationships of those who share my DNA.
  • I am attending DNA Day at the Southern California Genealogy Jamboree in June, especially CeCe Moore’s DNA and adoptees session.
  • Being the kick-butt librarian that I am, I will continue researching everything I can about genetic genealogy and how to analyze the DNA results.
  • I guess I need to also finally fill out and send in the notarized forms asking the County of Los Angeles to open and release my adoption file. Paper records still count!

My mom, who works in adoptions, has always been very supportive of me tracking down my birth family (so has Dad). But as Moms always do, she continues to try to protect me and shield me from disappointment. Mom has gently warned me that I need to be prepared to accept that my birth parents might not want to be found. She encounters this regularly in her work. Both biological parents have most likely gone on with their lives, marrying others and possibly having more children. They might not have told their new spouses and children about this incident from their past. They might not want them to know. They might not want to be found.

If so, that’s okay too. Like I said, finding them has never been important to me. It won’t hurt me. And having taken Judy Russell’s Ethical Genealogist session at FGS, I understand that while it is my right to know, it is not my right to force others to know, or to blow someone else’s secret.

At the very least, this remains a great learning opportunity and case study for my portfolio. Perhaps it will equip me to help give back to the adoption community by being able to assist others seeking to venture into this same journey.