As I understand it, it's stated in the court records. Chuck On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 20:11, Nelda Percival wrote: > Hi, > What makes you think she didn't want to take care of them? Depending on the > time in history, Widows did not always get to keep their children. The > courts would take them away if they thought the widow could not afford to > take care of them, they usually were placed with family but not always. I > have seen many cases of this in early court records. The court would rule, > also if a male (anymale) in the community made a statement to the court that > they didn't think she could take care of them or that they wanted them the > children were placed in a home.. Women had no rights to their children.. not > untel the latter 1800's did a woman start to get any say so over the > children of her loins.. The court ruled! > Nelda > > > > Nelda L. Percival nee Gilpin, IBSSG > Beatty descendant line #005 > Beaty collateral line #10 > Graves descendant line #231 > Digin up bones at: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~bonsteinandgilpin/ > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Chuck Gibson <cathal@flash.net> > To: BP2000-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [BP2000] Line 3 Watts > Date: 13 Mar 2004 19:40:28 -0600 > > Would any line 3 have the information of > Charles and Elizabeth Watts children after > he died and she didn't want to take care of them. > She might be his 2nd wife? > > They were taken in by George or William Beatty. > > > > -- > Chuck Gibson <cathal@flash.net> > > > ==== BP2000 Mailing List ==== > Visit the BP2000 Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~bp2000/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- Chuck Gibson <cathal@flash.net>