Divorced, Dual-Custody, Non-member Children Live with Non-Member Spouse.

There is a member in our ward who was recently divorced for the third time. He has joint-custody of all of his children but they do not live with him. I transferred his member-wife out with their member daughter, that was easy.

However, his other children have also moved out to be with their non-member mothers. Those children are NOT members of the church and when they were here were added as "child of record" before they were 8. Now all his children are over 8 years old, not baptized, and living primarily in locations outside the ward boundaries with non-member adults.

It seems a shame to do so, but from what I understand I am supposed to do with these children's records is this: Get bishop/stake president approval, then DELETE each of these "Child of Record" membership records.

Am I correct?

PS. The member still residing in our ward wants the names of the children to be listed under his name in the church because they're "still his kids". Can i add them as non-member records residing with him or should I do something else? I don't want to leave them in the ward as they are because there is nothing the auxiliaries can do to help these kids and thus we don't want them to show up on their reports.

adoga wrote:It seems a shame to do so, but from what I understand I am supposed to do with these children's records is this: Get bishop/stake president approval, then DELETE each of these "Child of Record" membership records.

Am I correct?

Follow the guidance in Handbook 1. The wiki article Membership record provides a good summary of the guidance.

Essentially the record of an unbaptized member over the age of nine is retained until the person is 18 years of age. Then, with written approval from the stake president, the bishop can direct removal of the record.

adoga wrote:PS. The member still residing in our ward wants the names of the children to be listed under his name in the church because they're "still his kids". Can i add them as non-member records residing with him or should I do something else? I don't want to leave them in the ward as they are because there is nothing the auxiliaries can do to help these kids and thus we don't want them to show up on their reports.

Since the children are not yet 18, it sounds from what you have provided that the records should be retained. However their records should be moved to the ward in which the children physically reside. If that is still within your ward boundaries then your ward would keep the records.

I find it disturbing that ward leaders are more concerned about reports than the eternal welfare of individuals. There may be nothing that can be done now, but opportunities to bless those children in the future may arise.

adoga wrote:PS. The member still residing in our ward wants the names of the children to be listed under his name in the church because they're "still his kids". Can i add them as non-member records residing with him or should I do something else?

Sorry if I'm pointing out something you already know, but it seems to be a common point of confusion in the forum. All the information you see when you are in the "individual record" is about that individual. The "children" tab is strictly genealogical information and in no way reflects the membership in the ward - or even church membership.

Only in when viewing "Household Records", the section "Household Members" reflects records in the ward. So it's completely possible to not have the children's records yet still have them as "his kids".

As for what to do, I'd double-check the Handbook. Usually the records are not canceled until the child reaches the age of 18 and has been given every opportunity to join. If I'm correct, then I think the thing to do would be to move the records out to where the mothers reside. I'd also suggest a follow-up phone call to those wards and let them know of the situation - why they are receiving records of children without parents.

jdlessley wrote: I find it disturbing that ward leaders are more concerned about reports than the eternal welfare of individuals. There may be nothing that can be done now, but opportunities to bless those children in the future may arise.

That's why I said "Sadly" because 1) they are technically non-members living outside the ward boundaries, with non-members. 2) There is not much we can do for them from a distance except maybe mail them a letter.

Are we to treat children of record the same as baptized members until they are 18 then?

What I'm gathering from your message is that we're supposed to transfer these children's records to the new address where they reside, even though they are not technically members and neither are any members of their household. Correct?

PS. I'd gladly keep the records in our ward but the children do not live nearby so I don't want to break policy either. Lastly, I don't want to "offend" the non-member parent who has not granted permission to contact her or her child.

RussellHltn wrote:Sorry if I'm pointing out something you already know, but it seems to be a common point of confusion in the forum. All the information you see when you are in the "individual record" is about that individual. The "children" tab is strictly genealogical information and in no way reflects the membership in the ward - or even church membership.

Only in when viewing "Household Records", the section "Household Members" reflects records in the ward. So it's completely possible to not have the children's records yet still have them as "his kids".

As for what to do, I'd double-check the Handbook. Usually the records are not canceled until the child reaches the age of 18 and has been given every opportunity to join. If I'm correct, then I think the thing to do would be to move the records out to where the mothers reside. I'd also suggest a follow-up phone call to those wards and let them know of the situation - why they are receiving records of children without parents.

This makes the most sense to me. Thank you both.

adoga wrote:Are we to treat children of record the same as baptized members until they are 18 then?

Not in all respects (they aren't counted in statistics once they turn 9, for example), but in most other regards they are the same as baptized members.

adoga wrote:What I'm gathering from your message is that we're supposed to transfer these children's records to the new address where they reside, even though they are not technically members and neither are any members of their household. Correct?

UPDATED: They have a membership record until it is canceled. I don't know what the term "technically members" means. So the rule about membership records being in the ward where the members are living does apply, and thus their membership records should be moved to the ward where they now live. There are plenty of good reasons for that rule; the most important is that that ward is in a better position to minister to their needs. The ward where they are living when they turn 18 will have the responsibility for canceling the records if they have chosen not to be baptized. Until then, they still have membership records.

aebrown wrote:Not in all respects (they aren't counted in statistics once they turn 9, for example), but in most other regards they are the same as baptized members.



They are members of record. I don't know what the term "technically members" means. The fact that they are members of record means that they have membership records. So the rule about membership records being in the ward where the members are living does apply, and thus their membership records should be moved to the ward where they now live. There are plenty of good reasons for that rule; the most important is that that ward is in a better position to minister to their needs. The ward where they are living when they turn 18 will have the responsibility for canceling the records if they have chosen not to be baptized. Until then, they are children of record.

Thanks again.

One thing that wasn't clear before was caused by this sentence, "A person who is nine years or older who has a membership record but has not been baptized and confirmed is not considered a member of record."

Since they're over-age, they're not a member of record. If they're not a member of record then what are they? I'm not sure how to explain this to the Husband so that he can explain it to the X-Wife why members of the church are calling her about her child. I want it to go well and not misspeak.

adoga wrote:One thing that wasn't clear before was caused by this sentence, "A person who is nine years or older who has a membership record but has not been baptized and confirmed is not considered a member of record."

That's correct. I wasn't using the correct terms in my earlier post (which I have amended). But even if they are not members of record, they do indeed have membership records.

adoga wrote:Since they're over-age, they're not a member of record. If they're not a member of record then what are they? I'm not sure how to explain this to the Husband so that he can explain it to the X-Wife why members of the church are calling her about her child. I want it to go well and not misspeak.

I don't know what the correct term is, but it's quite clear that they have membership records until those records are canceled (or they are baptized and their membership records have an obvious change in status). It's also quite clear that the time for deciding if those records are canceled is when they turn 18.

Until then, I certainly agree that the records are in an awkward state. I suppose if everyone involved wants the records canceled earlier, then you wouldn't have to wait until they turn 18. But such a case is not covered specifically in the Handbook.

adoga wrote:Since they're over-age, they're not a member of record. If they're not a member of record then what are they?

Their record is called a linked record.

Even though they are not members of record, Handbook 1 provides guidance on handling these individuals. As has been stated their records are treated much the same as a member of record. How they are fellowshipped, contacted, or taught the Gospel is determined by the leaders in whose boundaries they reside. Giving those leaders as much information about their situation will help avoid unfavorable situations and make future contact a possibility.

adoga wrote:I'm not sure how to explain this to the Husband so that he can explain it to the X-Wife why members of the church are calling her about her child. I want it to go well and not misspeak.

Communication with the gaining unit can deter clumsy situations. It would not hurt for the member father to also talk to the gaining bishop(s).

jdlessley wrote:Their record is called a linked record.

Not really. The children in this case actually have a membership record that resides in a ward, whereas a Linked Record is not a record that can ever be in a ward. A linked record has an MRN that may appear on other records, but a linked record can only reside at CHQ.

aebrown wrote:Not really. The children in this case actually have a membership record that resides in a ward, whereas a Linked Record is not a record that can ever be in a ward. A linked record has an MRN that may appear on other records, but a linked record can only reside at CHQ.

Thank you both. I believe there will be a happy ending to all this as a result of transferring, not removing, these "linked" records. I appreciate the support you provide here! have a great week.

Not to fork the thread, but I think it's confusing to have MRN's associated with linked records. In other words, I think only those with membership records should have MRN's (or at least a number in a different format - readily recognizable as not a normal membership record).

We had one case where a sister had two adopted daughters listed on her membership record. I naively thought they must have membership records because their mother's record showed them with MRN's, and they were just somehow split up. I tried to request them only to receive a message from CHQ that their records didn't exist.

greggo wrote:Not to fork the thread, but I think it's confusing to have MRN's associated with linked records. In other words, I think only those with membership records should have MRN's (or at least a number in a different format - readily recognizable as not a normal membership record).

I'm not sure how linked records are formatted, but you might want to read Temporary membership record which includes tips for identifying the MRN type.

RussellHltn wrote:I'm not sure how linked records are formatted, but you might want to read Temporary membership record which includes tips for identifying the MRN type.

There's no way to distinguish a linked record MRN from the MRN of a real membership record. Both use the same numbering scheme.

Temporary records, on the other hand, do use a different numbering scheme, so they can be distinguished simply by examining the MRN.

On how to reference these members the Bishops Action and Interview list refers to them as Unbaptized members

bamamoser wrote:On how to reference these members the Bishops Action and Interview list refers to them as Unbaptized members

Can you explain in a little more detail on what information you're looking for?