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