I recently obtained the Orphan's Court files for all of John's children which caused me to further question the reasons behind assigning a guardian to children whose mother was still alive. When I wrote about Tressa Froman's petition for guardianship I mused about this situation. Thank you to my brother, Bob, for his insight that women in that time period essentially had no rights and, therefore, could not guard the rights of her children. An adult male would need to become their legal guardian. I had not thought in legal terms, only in terms of the modern dictionary definition of the word orphan: a child who has lost both parents. Knowing the standing of a widow in the late 1800s and the legal definition of orphan changed my understanding of the situation of both Catherine and her children.
Wendy of Jollette, Etc. also responded and provided a link to Orphans and Guardians at Bob Baird's Bob's Genealogy Filing Cabinet. Thank you, Wendy.
Bob gives a history of the legal aspect of an orphan, discusses the role of guardian, guardianship versus custody, and the rights of orphans.
Several of his statements added insight and answered questions:
- The "guardian's responsibility was focused on the property of the orphan "rather than on the orphan himself." His primary purpose "was to provide for management of the orphan's estate...."
- "The guardian’s primary role was management and preservation of the inherited property until the child reached majority and could manage it themselves."
- "It should be noted that guardians could be at considerable financial risk, for they were personally liable for loss of the child’s property. (That was the purpose of the guardian bond.)"
If you're interested in this topic, I encourage you to read Bob Baird's post, Orphans and Guardians.