This seems like a very plausible scenario to me. I have the same situation with my Butler County, PA family. Julia Ann Schlagel had a son, Levi, to Alexander Finney. In the 1850 census, Levi appears as a 5 year-old living with his grandparents with the surname Schlagel, not Finney. The parents are nowhere to be found. I often suspect that this was a pregancy out of wedlock and the grandparents were raising the child as their own to save face for the daughter, but I am not sure. In 1860, 15-year old Levi is still living with his grandparents (again no parents) and now called Levi Phinney. In 1870, Levi is gone, but his mother is back living with the parents and is listed as Julia Ann Schlagel, her maiden name, not Finney. In 1880, 36 year-old Levi Finney is living with his wife and children in another county. Mother, Julia Ann Schlagel, is still living with her father. I have never found Alexander Finney, Levi's father, in the census records. I still have no idea why Levi is listed as a Schlagel living with his grandparents (as a son), then listed as a Finney, and the mother doesn't appear until after the son has moved out and does not have the same surname as her son. I guess we always have to live with some uncertainty in this business. Shaun -----Original Message----- From: ChristieTrapp@aol.com [mailto:ChristieTrapp@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:00 PM To: NJWARREN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [NJWARREN] Warren County Births Here's a thought too about the census. The person who reported the members of the family named everybody in the house of Baylor, including the Cunningham kid and gave him the Baylor name. I had this happen in Michigan for a family of mine. One of my greats was listed with his wife in the 1850 census - the only time he will appear as he died in 1855 leaving 3 kids with one on the way. She was a young widow and suddenly the kids are spread out among other family members - all listed with the correct surname in the 1860 census Then comes the 1870 and she remarried and brought her kids back into the fold, but this time all the kids had his name - they weren't adopted - but the census lists all the kids with his surname for that year. 1880 comes along and now the kids are getting old enough to go out on their own with their own wives and they revert back to their true surname. Needless to say, tracking this woman through the census was fun time as she then comes along in the 1900 census with another name - a third husband and this time she says she is the mother of 5 with 4 living. I suspect she had a child by the second husband, but am not sure. It is possible that the child living in the household in 1900 was a child by the third husband's first wife though a child is mentioned in the second husband's military record but it doesn't identify who the mother is of that child. He just says that ALL his previous wives were deceased, which is a mistake because this wife that I am discussing here was very much alive, well and kicking even after the second husband died in TN married to a third wife who then tried to claim his military pension. I might add she was unsuccessful at getting his pension because after he died, she married another man, not only once, but twice and the government wouldn't buy what she was telling them! So, it is possible that you might have a situation like this one where a census taker "assumed" the child's surname was Baylor or didn't "hear" Cunningham. You know what assume means, I hope! Tongue in cheek. Christie Trapp ==== NJWARREN Mailing List ==== You can contact the listowner at: Judy@BirdGenealogy.org ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx