From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Sat Mar 4 13:45:16 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k24KjGjb003772; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:45:16 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k24KjEmC016975 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:45:14 -0700 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k24IFKFI002246 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:15:20 -0500 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k24IFKuK002245 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:15:20 -0500 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k24EIdFI001749 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:18:39 -0500 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k24GmMQf004711 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:48:22 -0700 X-Envelope-From: arlynda@oakharbor.net Sat Mar 4 09:48:22 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k24GmMjb004702 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:48:22 -0700 Received: from tpa6.isomedia.com (mailout.isomedia.com [207.115.64.110]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k24GmC6a017946 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 09:48:12 -0700 Received: from pioneernet.net (mail.pioneernet.net [207.115.64.224]) by tpa6.isomedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A671C80AE; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 08:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from yourw04gtxld67 [66.114.156.6] by pioneernet.net (SMTPD32-6.06) id A4DDC46C0110; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:48:29 -0800 Message-ID: <000501c63fab$66850930$2f01a8c0@yourw04gtxld67> From: "Arlynda" To: "bobert" , References: <200603041400.k24E0aM4002144@lists5.rootsweb.com> <001b01c63fa7$f9a92ce0$26b9eb04@Desktop> Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] COMMON-LAW MATES/CHILDREN Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 08:48:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at isomedia.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 tagged_above=-999.0 required=999.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: LEVEL= X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Thank Heavens, California seems to have gotten away from marking their birth certificates with the word illigetimate....and I hope other states have followed suit... Arlynda ----- Original Message ----- From: "bobert" To: Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:58 AM Subject: [ROOTS-L] COMMON-LAW MATES/CHILDREN > Hello Rooters! Common-law marriages vary from state-to-state. Best to > check the individual state's laws on these matters. At one time in Texas, > for instance, if a man introduced a woman as his wife, she was legally > recognized as his legal wife. > > So long as both the man and the woman are alive, it probably doesn't make > a whole lot of difference, but once there is a child - and God Forbid, one > of the parents dies - then custody and estate matters > [inheritance rights] can certainly become a 'big bag of worms' - and in > this day and age, with state and federal benefits like Social Security and > Income Tax Deductions - a 'huge bag of worms' immerges. And - some > states now recognize "Grandparents Rights". > > Personally, I dislike the word, "illegitimate" - it places an unnecessary > stigma on an innocent child who never asked to be born in the first place. > I've always agreed with the Mrs. Gadney [began childrens homes and, who > back in the 1920's or thereabouts], said, "There are no 'illegitimate' > children, only illegitimate parents." > > I realize the word 'illegitimate' has been around forever, it seems, and > used on legal documents - however, the phrase "out of wedlock" is so much > kinder. > > Shirley: bobert@I-1.net >