Sealing child to non biological father

[grayitalia]

A brother in our ward is in a second marriage to a sister who has two children from a previous marriage. He is, therefore, not the biological father and he has not adopted them. They recently went to the temple and had the two children sealed to them. This brother would like the children's names listed on his membership record, but when I tried to add them, MLS stated that children can only be added "if the child is either a biological or a legally adopted child." Question #1: Is there any way to show on the brother's membership record that these children are sealed to him?
Meanwhile, the children's membership records show the accurate date when they were "Sealed to Parents". But when clicking the "Parents" tab in the children's membership records it shows the biological father, not the brother they were sealed to. So, the membership record gives the impression that these children are sealed to their biological father. Question #2: Is there any way to show on the children's membership records that they are sealed to their non biological father?

[russellhltn]

I think the short answer to both questions is "no", simply because the system is not designed that way.

I'd suggest you pull Handbook 1 and read that appropriate section on sealings. That may or may not answer the question.

Someone else might have a better answer, but you may need to talk to Local Unit Support and/or the temple president if you have any further questions. (Personally, I thinking that the children shouldn't have been sealed to a non-adoptive parent. But I don't have Handbook 1 at hand to check that.)

[eblood66]

I think the short answer to both questions is "no", simply because the system is not designed that way.

I'd add that MLS tracks the legal mortal parentage, not the eternal sealing relationship. There are other situations where the parent as listed in MLS may be different than the person the child is sealed to. An example is listed in Handbook 1 section 3.6.2 second paragraph.

Someone else might have a better answer, but you may need to talk to Local Unit Support and/or the temple president if you have any further questions. (Personally, I thinking that the children shouldn't have been sealed to a non-adoptive parent. But I don't have Handbook 1 at hand to check that.)

Assuming appropriate consents were given, the sealing is inline with the policies in Handbook 1 since one biological parent is involved.

Although MLS does not support multiple kinds of parental relationships, New Family Search/Family Tree do. So although the information can't be viewed while the individuals involved are living (for privacy reasons), the sealing is recorded and will show up correctly for their posterity.

[lajackson]

Assuming appropriate consents were given, . . .

The situation, as described, is not covered in the Handbook. However, the First Presidency would certainly be authorized to grant an exception. They did, after all, help write it.

I am certain that the temple now has the letter authorizing these ordinances.

As for MLS, good luck. I am not sure how they handle this one. I would just say that the Temple Department works with the Membership Department to update temple ordinances on membership records, and it is out of the hands of the local clerk, unless there is an adoption at some time in the future.

[eblood66]

Assuming appropriate consents were given, . . .

The situation, as described, is not covered in the Handbook. However, the First Presidency would certainly be authorized to grant an exception. They did, after all, help write it.

Actually it is covered in section 3.6.2 under the sub-section 'Sealing of Living Children to One Natural Parent and a Stepparent'. Admittedly there are a few other conditions besides consent but nothing in the original post contradicts any of those conditions so I'm assuming they were probably met. Of course, as you say, if any weren't met, an exception could have been granted by the First Presidency as well.

[lajackson]

Assuming appropriate consents were given, . . .

The situation, as described, is not covered in the Handbook. However, the First Presidency would certainly be authorized to grant an exception. They did, after all, help write it.

Actually it is covered in section 3.6.2 . . .

I was referring to the very first sentence of that section. That is the reason a letter from the First Presidency authorizing the ordinance(s) would have been required.

I believe you probably are correct that everything else was per the Handbook.

[eblood66]

I was referring to the very first sentence of that section. That is the reason a letter from the First Presidency authorizing the ordinance(s) would have been required.

Nothing in the original post indicated that the mother was sealed to her first husband so I assumed that did not apply.

[lajackson]

Nothing in the original post indicated that the mother was sealed to her first husband so I assumed that did not apply.

Oops. I stand corrected. I was not reading carefully and did not connect the "sealed to parents" with the proper folks. Bad assumption on my part, and it also means that most everything I said about approvals, etc., does not apply.

[grayitalia]

Thank you all for the responses. It sounds like MLS does not support the situation I described. And it sounds like I should talk to Local Unit Support, but I'm not sure who that would be exactly. Would that be someone from the stake or someone at Church Headquarters?
Just for clarification, one child is 28 years old and is endowed, and the other is 20 years old and I believe is also endowed. Even though one child is 20 years old, he is still endowed and probably fits within the parameters or the Temple wouldn't have allowed the sealing to take place. Anyway thanks again for all the help.

[t.tuigamala]

Hello all,

I'm getting married in March (first time), and I'm hoping to seal my daughter to me and my soon-to-be husband. My daughter's biological father is not a member of the gospel, and has agreed to write a letter consenting to the sealing. I would like to know who he would need to make the letter out to. The presidency? The temple president? To whom it may concern?

Thank you in advance.