Agree with your interpretation. It’s just badly written. There has been a lot of that in this case causing confusion.That just means that they consider all of them siblings now, they joined their new siblings imo, just badly written.
Agree with your interpretation. It’s just badly written. There has been a lot of that in this case causing confusion.That just means that they consider all of them siblings now, they joined their new siblings imo, just badly written.
I agree, it's a generally stated unifying description. Instead of excluding, they made it an all-inclusive description, IMO.I’m pretty sure the adoptive family statement is just referring to all the children as siblings, ie that is how they see them now that they are all living as one family with one set of parents
I'll agree to disagree with you on this oneI think only one of the bio dads was there, though. They may not know anything about the other one or that he had other children. They didn't even know the kids had been adopted.
It could also be that only one of the boys shares the same father as the other two. That might be why the family wrote "sibling" with no s.
Both bio dads weren't there, the bio family doesn't know about the other bio dads, that one of the boys may share the same bio dad, or that the family didn't realize they were adopted? If the latter they did ask if the kids were foster children.I'll agree to disagree with you on this one![]()
Or two are still foster children. That hasn't been cleared up yet.They are all siblings, four of them are adopted and two of them are biological. That is in regards to the parents, not to each other. My understanding is that there are three sets of siblings, Orson and Orrin are biologically related to each other but not to the rest of the children in the home.