From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Wed Mar 29 13:29:51 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 k2TKTpjb025905; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:29:51 -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 k2TKToHO004223 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:29:50 -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 k2THwQFI025947 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:58:26 -0500 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k2THwQa3025946 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:58:26 -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 k2TGWbFI025738 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:32:37 -0500 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k2TJ3oFn001072 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:03:50 -0700 X-Envelope-From: nobody Wed Mar 29 12:03:50 2006 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k2TJ3orF001058 for ROOTS-M; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:03:50 -0700 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 k2T3hDjb018315 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:43:13 -0700 Received: from myp300.mysystem.org (IDENT:0@dialup-228-222.crln.waymark.net [207.53.228.222] (may be forged)) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2T3h8h5010244 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:43:09 -0700 Received: from myp300.mysystem.org (IDENT:1000@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by myp300.mysystem.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2T3givb000485 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:42:45 -0600 Received: from localhost (steve@localhost) by myp300.mysystem.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id k2T3gdug000482 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:42:44 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: myp300.mysystem.org: steve owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:42:39 -0600 (CST) From: shmartonak@ticnet.com X-X-Sender: steve@myp300.mysystem.org To: ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com In-Reply-To: <200603281400.k2SE0Uth030291@lists5.rootsweb.com> Message-ID: References: <200603281400.k2SE0Uth030291@lists5.rootsweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 1.81 (*) BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,NO_REAL_NAME X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Subject: [ROOTS-L] re: unusual guardianship Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com I think you'll find that minors will often have different guardians. Children of a certain age, I think usually fourteen, were able to choose their own guardian while younger children had a guardian appointed by the court. -- > X-Message: #1 > Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:04:51 -0800 (PST) > From: Melissa Hogan > Subject: Re: Unusual guardianship papers > > That is an interesting case. I have a case (Lincoln Co., TN in the late > 1820's, early 1830's) in my research where guardianship of the children > was split . . . the 4 oldest children with one guardian (who was also > administrator of the estate) and the younger 4 children with a second > guardian. Eventually all children were "under" the first guardian but > records for the period where the change occurred have not been located. > Based on the ages of the children's parents there do not appear to be > any prior marriages . . . and I have yet to determine who the children > actually lived with after the death of their parents. . . it does not > appear to be either of the guardians (or known grandparent). > > I am interested in the responses to your question as well. > > Melissa > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > X-Message: #12 > Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:45:24 EST > From: JBletch@aol.com > Subject: Unusual guardianship papers > > I have run across an unusual set of guardianship > papers and wonder if there is anyone who has > read anything similar. Any point of view appreciated. > > A man died (intestate) in MS in 1827, leaving six > minor children as heirs of his considerable estate. > The oldest child, a son, was 12 or 13 at the time. > This oldest child was handicapped in some way, being > listed in the guardianship papers (also in census records > as an adult) as a lunatic and idiotic. All guardianship > papers were filed in the orphan's court. > The five younger children were all included in one set > of papers with two court appointed guardians. The > older child had a separate set of papers. All the children > had their step father as one guardian. The second > guardian was different. > > My questions are why the separate filings? They were > both filed at about the same time. > Was the oldest child by a different wife? Did it have to do > with the fact he was handicapped? > ************************************