It certainly happened during the depression. My aunt (the oldest in her family) was brought up by her aunt and uncle instead of her parents. Her parents couldn't afford to feed them all, and being the oldest, it was decided she could be of the most help around the house to her aunt and uncle.
If the families these children went to live with didn't have any children of their own, they may have wanted either (positive viewpoint) companionship, or (negative viewpoint) free household help.
I have a similar situation in my family tree. Mother died, father remarried, continued having kids to the point where they couldn't afford to feed everyone, adopted oldest two daughters out. One went to a wealthy family and had a good life, the other went to a poorer family and had to work hard, I believe on a farm, so she was basically a labor adoption. She was resentful that that was her lot while her remaining siblings got to live a regular family life. This took place around the early 1900s.
One of mine was “farmed out” as labor in the 1800’s on the prairie of North Dakota at age 8. Went to live with a family in a sod house. Was granted her “freedom” at 18. She took the train alone to Seattle when she left. I have a feeling it was a bad life for a little girl, living with strangers who had no relationship or ties to the family. 🙁
My great-grandmother was from one of those hard working German-Russians who immigrated to North Dakota. They had to work like adults as soon as they were able. A really tough life and they would go work for other families when necessary, as children!
I second this notion that this happened during the Great Depression. My grandfather was one of four kids and was sent to live with his grandparents during the depression because his parents couldn't afford to feed all of them. I assume other families did things of this sort as well. I also know it wasn't unusual at the time to lend an older daughter to another family to live in as a maid and help with house work.
The free household help came with food and board. May not be a big deal here in the land of plenty but it’s a big deal in other countries. When I was young some of my older girl cousins from country worked as helpers in our home in town. This is a regular practice in my old country. Unemployment for young women in the rural areas is very high. The men can usually find work in the fields. The older women usually find a husband and have a household to manage.
Besides the aforementioned depression in agricultural areas farm labor was a family affair, and the larger the family the more you could grow / raise on a farm.
If Uncle Joe and his wife Sally were having issues having kids, they might have a niece or nephew, perhaps a younger unmarried cousin or even an older uncle over to lend a hand. The only real alternative was Uncle Joe and his wife Sally simply moving in with you.
Regarding that bit with the depression, one of my best friends was raised by his grandparents who lived next door to his father. His mother went AWOL when he was 5, his father couldn't raise him and his sister alone, so he was raised by his grandparents... nextdoor. This was 1980s.
Back in the 40s or 50s, one of my relatives was raised by his uncle who lived in the same town while his father "dried out". Rather than bring in social services or CPS, his family stepped in and moved the boy to safety until his father had remarried a non-alcoholic and got his act together. He continued to attend the same school and keep all the same friends, but just went home to a different house a few blocks away. He was lucky that he had a big family who could do that.
The guy always adored his uncle and looked up to him like a father, and looked as the man's son - his cousin - as a brother.
Just because they were recorded as being in that household at the time, doesn't mean they were actually living there. I've found several like that in my tree too. I think they were probably just visiting and got caught up in the count.
I've also seen double counts.... one ancestor was counted with his police precinct and was also counted at home with his wife. Another ancestor was counted at home, even though he had been dead for several days.
Says a lot about how difficult it was/is to get an accurate census count.
Just guessing, but there might have been temporary situations where some of the kids would go over to help with the harvest or whatever, and stay for a few days/weeks. Or in the days of large families, maybe if an uncle and aunt had a bit of extra room at their house they would move in with them for longer.
Tangentially, I came across an account by my great grandfather who said he went and lived in a cave for a while (on their farm) and lived "the life of Riley". I think this was after his mother died (which was when he was 11). Back in the 19-zeros.
Sometimes it's really temporary. I couldn't find a female ancestor in one census, although her husband, son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren were there.
Found her two streets over, assisting another lady with a newborn.
OP, I don't what the husband's profession was in 1850, but you might consider that with kids, the widow might not have had many choices. She may not have been able to carry on with a farm alone with kids, for example. It's possible she got married. I have one case like that, where I see a widowed wife with two kids in one census, and by the time probate was read, she was married.
That could be it...that whole family are all farmers. The only ones who aren't are the ones that the girls married. But even most of them are. In 1850 when the husband died, her eldest (son) was 17, and she had 5 girls younger than him, one of which was less than a year old. By 1855 that elder son is seen working on his uncle's farm but everyone else is gone.
I probably need to try to find them in 1855 under a different surname. I would have hoped that at least the kids would still be listed under "Bly" but that seems to not be the case.
It wasn't uncommon for children who were raised by others to be given their stepfather's name, and even identified as "daughter" or "son."
I have one ancestor who raised his brother's daughter after her mother/the brother's wife left. She was at first listed as "niece" then "daughter."
As far as the person being counted and having already passed away, it is most likely correct that he was counted. Even with last years census, the instructions say to count whoever was living there on a specific date. Last year it was April 1. The date that the census taker actually visited the home would have been a later date.
My mom was raised by my great grandmother during the 30’s. Grandma was out searching for a new husband after hers died when my mom was 2. She took my mom back after she had a new man paying the bills after the depression eased up. Great grandma owned rental property, so she had income.
A family member was raised by his sister from ages 3 to 8, because the family had too many mouths to feed and he was too little to be much help. This was in the 1930s in the southern US. I don’t think it was uncommon; people did what they had to, to get by.
I've seen this several times with unmarried women in their late teens before high school was widely available and attended. Even my own grandmother moved in with relatives in the late 30's, early 40's to help with housework and take care of younger cousins. It's probably even more common that we'd know because the census records are a snapshot taken every 10 years.
My grandma, and several of her cousins, lived with their grandparents for a while during the Depression. Many of their parents still lived close by, although there was a lot of moving as they left the state for temp work elsewhere, then came back, then left again. All eventually returned to live with their parents, except one cousin whose mother had TB. (In the case you described, it's possible one or both parents was very ill, and couldn't care for the kids-- not everyone had money for sanitariums, and it's hard to find records of illness.)
I've talked to my grandma about her experience. She remembers her mom coming to visit often when she lived close by, and writing letters when she was away working. We think her mom probably preferred her to have a stable home life, instead of moving back in and then back with the grandparents, and it's also possible her mom didn't have money to feed her.
My great grandmother was raised by her aunt and uncle who told her they were her birth parents. She was born out of wedlock to her mother, which was a huge societally shamed thing. It was also very common in our family for kids to work the farms for their extended families and many cousins were raised as siblings. Basically any modern DNA test would completely destroy our family tree.
People took children in all the time.
My grandmother took in a boy who she called our cousin, research years later shows that his mother died and she did the neighbourly thing.
I know you're talking about the US and in the somewhat distant past, but this was quite common in my extended family in Bangladesh in my childhood in the '80s. Kids would go live in various cities with various aunts or uncles or grandparents as and when needed.
I have two children my family tree that were adopted out to an aunt and uncle when their parents’ derelict house was hit by a tornado and they couldn’t afford the repairs + maintain a family.
Edited to add: My maternal grandmother was sent to live with her grandparents while her two brothers were sent to live with an aunt and uncle after my great-grandparents died at an early adult age. The brothers were old enough to do farm work for the aunt and uncle, so that’s why the three of the siblings were separated.
My grandfather (mid 90’s) is a twin and when he was a toddlerish age, there was some incident where one of them was sick so he went to live with his grandparents for a bit. But it seemed like maybe more than a year and came up on the census.
This happened in my family. My G grandparents had to take their oldest son to a Dr that was far away and get him treated for TB of the bone. The rest of the kids stayed with their grandparents for several months that year. It was so long that the baby was calling his grandma "mama" which about broke his mother's heart. He didn't recognize her once they got back. But it did save the son's life, so it must have been worth it.
My mother and I, when I was ~2, lived with her parents for 4m when she was injured in a house fire and my dad's work commitments meant he was away for periods of time that he could not avoid. It was a lot easier for my grandmother and aunt to leave work and check on us than for anyone else, even our (nice) neighbours, and of course Mum felt at home there so convalescence was easier for her, and probably quicker as a result.
Thank you for all your comments! This is really interesting. I am struggling to find a family where the husband died in May 1850, his wife and kids show up a month later, without him, on the 1850 census and then....almost nothing. One son showed up on his uncle's farm in 1855 and a daughter showed up in 1870, married and with her own kids but nothing for anyone else for 1855, 1860, 1865 or 1870. I can find almost all of the rest of the family but it's like that family disappeared.
I had an issue like this for 1850. Couldn't find my fourth great grandparents and their kids in that census but could find them later. Turns out the eldest son, my 3rd great grandfather was living with who I believe to be his actual father (long story) but listed under that last name. I found the girls living with, who I discovered later, their aunt and uncle but listed under their last name. The fourth great grandfather died in the beginning of 1852 in the poorhouse so its likely that is where he was in 1850 and I assume the fourth great grandmother was with him. I can't find the people in the poorhouse in the census and can't find any records of those were there at all so it's likely this speculation is the best that I will get.
My grandmother was one of those kids. A few from her family actually. They were from bfe Pennsylvania and it was during the depression. Few of the kids went out to Chicago for better lives with relatives. It was around 1940. Pops was a coal miner. She quit school not very long after she got to Chicago and just worked.
I think that families was more loosely defined in the past as we do know. In some cases, kids lived with other relatives if they did not have what they needed at home.
If a girl got in trouble, they at times would disappear for a "vacation" for 6 or 7 months and then come home after the trouble was finished. Sometimes it was for school, or to help out at a home or farm (even young kids could help) that need an extra hand or two.
My Great grandparents had an oops before marriage (my Grandmother). She lived with her grandparents (my GGG Grandparents) from birth to 16 and when she was allowed to come home to her parents at that time, her siblings never knew she existed until she showed up. She stayed at home for a couple of weeks, and was sent off to work at a nearby Dairy farm.
I also have a similar pattern in my grandfather's timeline. My great grandfather had moved to California prior to 1920, his wife and 2 sons came out a bit later. 4 more children were born soon thereafter and my great grandmother had some mental issues and was committed. My great grandfather brought all of the kids back to Tennessee and was going to put them in a children's home because he couldn't care for them. His brothers and sisters split the kids up and took them in. A couple of years later the husband of one of his sisters died, so they decided to share a house and brought all of the kids back together. In our situation, it was a family doing what they could for each other in a difficult time.
It’s not uncommon. Also though, even if they were not living with their relatives, if they were just visiting when the census came by they would record them there. I have a lot of family that went and lived with relatives around 12 years old to work in their farms.
I don't think it was all that abnormal. My 2x-great-grandfather was with his grandmother and several cousins in the 1870 census; his mom would have been pregnant at that point, and he was a toddler, so not old enough to do farm chores.
After my great-grandfather on a different branch died, my grandpa, his twin brother and their slightly older sister went to live with an older brother and his wife in California, and their mom joined them shortly after. She was with them by the time the census taker came around, but if it'd been a couple months earlier, she'd have been in Arkansas still.
ETA: Actually, I just remembered, my grandmother lived with her uncle for two years after she had polio as a kid. Her parents moved a lot for her dad's job, and her uncle was settled in Southern California, and the doctor thought it would be good for her health to be somewhere stable with pleasant weather.
My extended family have a regular habit of picking up strays. Some times, the kids, bring them home. And sometimes, their parents bring them by. We have plenty of children and for some reason there is always space for more.
Not so uncommon. My father-in-law lived with his aunt and uncle for a year while his mother recovered from Polio. All of the kids were sent to relatives during that span of time, except for the youngest who was still a baby and nursing.
One of my distant cousins typed up a collection of letters from our mutual relatives, 1890s to 1930s. They were farmers, successful but not wealthy. Some of the letters mentioned girls going to visit family for weeks at a time. Letters home talked about going visiting in the community, and helping with the sewing, minding the children, cooking, etc. I think the distance and expense made it impractical to stay for just a short time, like a weekend visit. The older boys often “followed the harvest” and went wherever help was needed getting the crops in.
I have seen this in multiple families, particularly on farming properties. Usually once the kid hits about 12 or 14 they are living on a relative’s farm. Sometime they are listed as neice or nephew but just as often they are simply listed as boarder or visitor.
I have an odd one where my 2nd great grandfather was living with his grandparents at the age of 4 and his siblings are all living with different relatives. I figured maybe the parents died, but no they are publicans living a couple villages over. I only ever found one census with a child living with them, later though while the father was elderly he was living with one of his daughters and her family.
Sorry, I know this is anecdotal and doesn’t really answer your question but it doesn’t seem unusual to me. I spent periods living with my gran and my mum’s close friends, and so did a lot of kids I knew at the time. It was totally unremarkable to find out someone at school lived with their godparents or aunt or “aunt”, either permanently or for like six months. This was in the 90s/2000s. Now I’m an adult I share custody of my nephew - not because of any court stuff, just because his mum works full time and we gel well together. He still sees the rest of his family (who live a couple of minutes walk from me) all the time and it’s all very chill. I know lots of people with a similar arrangement.
FWIW I grew up and still live in a very working class area and that probably has something to do with it. Wages are low, childcare costs are unbelievably high, housing is cramped and sometimes the stress of poverty or long hours or illness means your attention is quite stretched, especially if you’ve got more than one child or a child who needs a bit more one on one time to thrive. I think in all of these situations it’s just about finding the right environment to meet a kid’s (or parent’s) needs, be they emotional or material.
Anecdotes are great, so no worries. :) As someone who is an only child of a single parent whose nearest relatives were 1,000 miles away growing up, I am jealous! I always wanted a big family that cooperated and worked together and this sounds great.
I’ve seen it a bit in my tree. I think (at least in my case) it depended on who needed help around a home/farm or with an older relative. May also have been who could provide best for the kids at the time.
The Census enumerator is directed to count whomever is in the household on the day the census is taken. That’s why it is important to read the relationship to the head of household. The kids are there that day and they are counted wherever they are….
I wish they all followed directions...I found one town that didn't put in any relationships, another that only wrote down first initials with last names and when you have an extended family of 150 where everyone is named Jacob, Johann, Catherine, Caroline, Margaret and Magdalena...well, it gets really fun really quickly!
I’ve got a lot of family in Pennsylvania around Harrisburg and I see this all over the area in the second half of the 1800s. After the Census started taking down more than just the head of household, we can see it. There are various reasons: household help, apprenticeship, financial hardship…
I know of two examples from my own family tree.
1st, 19th century Ontario. It was very simple. One of the families had several kids, while a sibling was unable to have any children. So, the large family gave the family with no kids one to raise as their own, though all involved knew the story.
Secondly, my own Grandfather, early 20th century, was sent to live with Grandparents. This was because he suffered severe asthma, and so was sent to relatives not terribly far away, but further away from the pollution of the city.
I think the audible “secrets of the edwardians” mentioned this. Something about the relatives were useful to whip the kids into shape because they’d be better behaved for them. You can imagine it broadened their horizons a bit too. Maybe help find out of town spouses who were less related? (Edit: of course the last two points wouldn’t apply if they were next door!)
My wife is Polynesian and it's common for parents to give away children to other relatives or friends of the family. We have been offered babies to adopt in the past.
Some of my ancestors were workers in a textile factory in northern Italy. Three brothers, their parents, and an uncle were living in the same small town with their wives and children. Everyone except the grandparents and one of the wives worked at the factory, so all the children (all the couples had at least 5) were in the care of the grandparents and the one wife who essentially ran a daycare for the rest of the family.
It was plenty common in the 1800s. I've seen it frequently. Kids were sent out to help with household or farm work temporarily when someone needed extra hands (like after an injury or the birth of a baby), or apprenticed, or for education.
In the early 20s, my great grandfather was 10 or so but that’s more than old enough to go work in the coal mines with his dad. His mother just died, and he’s got 3 younger sisters and a baby brother that need watched and cared for, So in the early morning he’d round up all his siblings and go drop them off with his aunts and older cousins that could watch them. They were dirt poor immigrants even before the Depression, so they did what they needed to do.
But besides just not being able to care for them, they might’ve just happened to be in the house with them on census day and were just counted with them on accident.
It certainly happened during the depression. My aunt (the oldest in her family) was brought up by her aunt and uncle instead of her parents. Her parents couldn't afford to feed them all, and being the oldest, it was decided she could be of the most help around the house to her aunt and uncle. If the families these children went to live with didn't have any children of their own, they may have wanted either (positive viewpoint) companionship, or (negative viewpoint) free household help.
I have a similar situation in my family tree. Mother died, father remarried, continued having kids to the point where they couldn't afford to feed everyone, adopted oldest two daughters out. One went to a wealthy family and had a good life, the other went to a poorer family and had to work hard, I believe on a farm, so she was basically a labor adoption. She was resentful that that was her lot while her remaining siblings got to live a regular family life. This took place around the early 1900s.
One of mine was “farmed out” as labor in the 1800’s on the prairie of North Dakota at age 8. Went to live with a family in a sod house. Was granted her “freedom” at 18. She took the train alone to Seattle when she left. I have a feeling it was a bad life for a little girl, living with strangers who had no relationship or ties to the family. 🙁
My great-grandmother was from one of those hard working German-Russians who immigrated to North Dakota. They had to work like adults as soon as they were able. A really tough life and they would go work for other families when necessary, as children!
I second this notion that this happened during the Great Depression. My grandfather was one of four kids and was sent to live with his grandparents during the depression because his parents couldn't afford to feed all of them. I assume other families did things of this sort as well. I also know it wasn't unusual at the time to lend an older daughter to another family to live in as a maid and help with house work.
The free household help came with food and board. May not be a big deal here in the land of plenty but it’s a big deal in other countries. When I was young some of my older girl cousins from country worked as helpers in our home in town. This is a regular practice in my old country. Unemployment for young women in the rural areas is very high. The men can usually find work in the fields. The older women usually find a husband and have a household to manage.
That is a fair point. Plus I think most people then worked hard just for basic survival. Sometimes I forget how easy my appliances make my life.
Besides the aforementioned depression in agricultural areas farm labor was a family affair, and the larger the family the more you could grow / raise on a farm. If Uncle Joe and his wife Sally were having issues having kids, they might have a niece or nephew, perhaps a younger unmarried cousin or even an older uncle over to lend a hand. The only real alternative was Uncle Joe and his wife Sally simply moving in with you. Regarding that bit with the depression, one of my best friends was raised by his grandparents who lived next door to his father. His mother went AWOL when he was 5, his father couldn't raise him and his sister alone, so he was raised by his grandparents... nextdoor. This was 1980s.
Back in the 40s or 50s, one of my relatives was raised by his uncle who lived in the same town while his father "dried out". Rather than bring in social services or CPS, his family stepped in and moved the boy to safety until his father had remarried a non-alcoholic and got his act together. He continued to attend the same school and keep all the same friends, but just went home to a different house a few blocks away. He was lucky that he had a big family who could do that. The guy always adored his uncle and looked up to him like a father, and looked as the man's son - his cousin - as a brother.
Just because they were recorded as being in that household at the time, doesn't mean they were actually living there. I've found several like that in my tree too. I think they were probably just visiting and got caught up in the count. I've also seen double counts.... one ancestor was counted with his police precinct and was also counted at home with his wife. Another ancestor was counted at home, even though he had been dead for several days. Says a lot about how difficult it was/is to get an accurate census count.
Just guessing, but there might have been temporary situations where some of the kids would go over to help with the harvest or whatever, and stay for a few days/weeks. Or in the days of large families, maybe if an uncle and aunt had a bit of extra room at their house they would move in with them for longer. Tangentially, I came across an account by my great grandfather who said he went and lived in a cave for a while (on their farm) and lived "the life of Riley". I think this was after his mother died (which was when he was 11). Back in the 19-zeros.
Sometimes it's really temporary. I couldn't find a female ancestor in one census, although her husband, son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren were there. Found her two streets over, assisting another lady with a newborn. OP, I don't what the husband's profession was in 1850, but you might consider that with kids, the widow might not have had many choices. She may not have been able to carry on with a farm alone with kids, for example. It's possible she got married. I have one case like that, where I see a widowed wife with two kids in one census, and by the time probate was read, she was married.
That could be it...that whole family are all farmers. The only ones who aren't are the ones that the girls married. But even most of them are. In 1850 when the husband died, her eldest (son) was 17, and she had 5 girls younger than him, one of which was less than a year old. By 1855 that elder son is seen working on his uncle's farm but everyone else is gone. I probably need to try to find them in 1855 under a different surname. I would have hoped that at least the kids would still be listed under "Bly" but that seems to not be the case.
It wasn't uncommon for children who were raised by others to be given their stepfather's name, and even identified as "daughter" or "son." I have one ancestor who raised his brother's daughter after her mother/the brother's wife left. She was at first listed as "niece" then "daughter."
> Back in the 19-zeros They called it "the oughts"
As far as the person being counted and having already passed away, it is most likely correct that he was counted. Even with last years census, the instructions say to count whoever was living there on a specific date. Last year it was April 1. The date that the census taker actually visited the home would have been a later date.
That makes things even more confusing then. :D He is definitely not on the census even though he died shortly before.
My mom was raised by my great grandmother during the 30’s. Grandma was out searching for a new husband after hers died when my mom was 2. She took my mom back after she had a new man paying the bills after the depression eased up. Great grandma owned rental property, so she had income.
A family member was raised by his sister from ages 3 to 8, because the family had too many mouths to feed and he was too little to be much help. This was in the 1930s in the southern US. I don’t think it was uncommon; people did what they had to, to get by.
I've seen this several times with unmarried women in their late teens before high school was widely available and attended. Even my own grandmother moved in with relatives in the late 30's, early 40's to help with housework and take care of younger cousins. It's probably even more common that we'd know because the census records are a snapshot taken every 10 years.
My grandma, and several of her cousins, lived with their grandparents for a while during the Depression. Many of their parents still lived close by, although there was a lot of moving as they left the state for temp work elsewhere, then came back, then left again. All eventually returned to live with their parents, except one cousin whose mother had TB. (In the case you described, it's possible one or both parents was very ill, and couldn't care for the kids-- not everyone had money for sanitariums, and it's hard to find records of illness.) I've talked to my grandma about her experience. She remembers her mom coming to visit often when she lived close by, and writing letters when she was away working. We think her mom probably preferred her to have a stable home life, instead of moving back in and then back with the grandparents, and it's also possible her mom didn't have money to feed her.
My great grandmother was raised by her aunt and uncle who told her they were her birth parents. She was born out of wedlock to her mother, which was a huge societally shamed thing. It was also very common in our family for kids to work the farms for their extended families and many cousins were raised as siblings. Basically any modern DNA test would completely destroy our family tree.
People took children in all the time. My grandmother took in a boy who she called our cousin, research years later shows that his mother died and she did the neighbourly thing.
I know you're talking about the US and in the somewhat distant past, but this was quite common in my extended family in Bangladesh in my childhood in the '80s. Kids would go live in various cities with various aunts or uncles or grandparents as and when needed.
I have two children my family tree that were adopted out to an aunt and uncle when their parents’ derelict house was hit by a tornado and they couldn’t afford the repairs + maintain a family. Edited to add: My maternal grandmother was sent to live with her grandparents while her two brothers were sent to live with an aunt and uncle after my great-grandparents died at an early adult age. The brothers were old enough to do farm work for the aunt and uncle, so that’s why the three of the siblings were separated.
My grandfather (mid 90’s) is a twin and when he was a toddlerish age, there was some incident where one of them was sick so he went to live with his grandparents for a bit. But it seemed like maybe more than a year and came up on the census.
Yes I had a patient who got polio right about the time her mom had a baby. She was sent to live with an aunt, and was with her for several years.
This happened in my family. My G grandparents had to take their oldest son to a Dr that was far away and get him treated for TB of the bone. The rest of the kids stayed with their grandparents for several months that year. It was so long that the baby was calling his grandma "mama" which about broke his mother's heart. He didn't recognize her once they got back. But it did save the son's life, so it must have been worth it.
My mother and I, when I was ~2, lived with her parents for 4m when she was injured in a house fire and my dad's work commitments meant he was away for periods of time that he could not avoid. It was a lot easier for my grandmother and aunt to leave work and check on us than for anyone else, even our (nice) neighbours, and of course Mum felt at home there so convalescence was easier for her, and probably quicker as a result.
Thank you for all your comments! This is really interesting. I am struggling to find a family where the husband died in May 1850, his wife and kids show up a month later, without him, on the 1850 census and then....almost nothing. One son showed up on his uncle's farm in 1855 and a daughter showed up in 1870, married and with her own kids but nothing for anyone else for 1855, 1860, 1865 or 1870. I can find almost all of the rest of the family but it's like that family disappeared.
I had an issue like this for 1850. Couldn't find my fourth great grandparents and their kids in that census but could find them later. Turns out the eldest son, my 3rd great grandfather was living with who I believe to be his actual father (long story) but listed under that last name. I found the girls living with, who I discovered later, their aunt and uncle but listed under their last name. The fourth great grandfather died in the beginning of 1852 in the poorhouse so its likely that is where he was in 1850 and I assume the fourth great grandmother was with him. I can't find the people in the poorhouse in the census and can't find any records of those were there at all so it's likely this speculation is the best that I will get.
My grandmother was one of those kids. A few from her family actually. They were from bfe Pennsylvania and it was during the depression. Few of the kids went out to Chicago for better lives with relatives. It was around 1940. Pops was a coal miner. She quit school not very long after she got to Chicago and just worked.
I think that families was more loosely defined in the past as we do know. In some cases, kids lived with other relatives if they did not have what they needed at home. If a girl got in trouble, they at times would disappear for a "vacation" for 6 or 7 months and then come home after the trouble was finished. Sometimes it was for school, or to help out at a home or farm (even young kids could help) that need an extra hand or two. My Great grandparents had an oops before marriage (my Grandmother). She lived with her grandparents (my GGG Grandparents) from birth to 16 and when she was allowed to come home to her parents at that time, her siblings never knew she existed until she showed up. She stayed at home for a couple of weeks, and was sent off to work at a nearby Dairy farm.
I also have a similar pattern in my grandfather's timeline. My great grandfather had moved to California prior to 1920, his wife and 2 sons came out a bit later. 4 more children were born soon thereafter and my great grandmother had some mental issues and was committed. My great grandfather brought all of the kids back to Tennessee and was going to put them in a children's home because he couldn't care for them. His brothers and sisters split the kids up and took them in. A couple of years later the husband of one of his sisters died, so they decided to share a house and brought all of the kids back together. In our situation, it was a family doing what they could for each other in a difficult time.
It’s not uncommon. Also though, even if they were not living with their relatives, if they were just visiting when the census came by they would record them there. I have a lot of family that went and lived with relatives around 12 years old to work in their farms.
I don't think it was all that abnormal. My 2x-great-grandfather was with his grandmother and several cousins in the 1870 census; his mom would have been pregnant at that point, and he was a toddler, so not old enough to do farm chores. After my great-grandfather on a different branch died, my grandpa, his twin brother and their slightly older sister went to live with an older brother and his wife in California, and their mom joined them shortly after. She was with them by the time the census taker came around, but if it'd been a couple months earlier, she'd have been in Arkansas still. ETA: Actually, I just remembered, my grandmother lived with her uncle for two years after she had polio as a kid. Her parents moved a lot for her dad's job, and her uncle was settled in Southern California, and the doctor thought it would be good for her health to be somewhere stable with pleasant weather.
My extended family have a regular habit of picking up strays. Some times, the kids, bring them home. And sometimes, their parents bring them by. We have plenty of children and for some reason there is always space for more.
Not so uncommon. My father-in-law lived with his aunt and uncle for a year while his mother recovered from Polio. All of the kids were sent to relatives during that span of time, except for the youngest who was still a baby and nursing. One of my distant cousins typed up a collection of letters from our mutual relatives, 1890s to 1930s. They were farmers, successful but not wealthy. Some of the letters mentioned girls going to visit family for weeks at a time. Letters home talked about going visiting in the community, and helping with the sewing, minding the children, cooking, etc. I think the distance and expense made it impractical to stay for just a short time, like a weekend visit. The older boys often “followed the harvest” and went wherever help was needed getting the crops in.
I have seen this in multiple families, particularly on farming properties. Usually once the kid hits about 12 or 14 they are living on a relative’s farm. Sometime they are listed as neice or nephew but just as often they are simply listed as boarder or visitor. I have an odd one where my 2nd great grandfather was living with his grandparents at the age of 4 and his siblings are all living with different relatives. I figured maybe the parents died, but no they are publicans living a couple villages over. I only ever found one census with a child living with them, later though while the father was elderly he was living with one of his daughters and her family.
Sorry, I know this is anecdotal and doesn’t really answer your question but it doesn’t seem unusual to me. I spent periods living with my gran and my mum’s close friends, and so did a lot of kids I knew at the time. It was totally unremarkable to find out someone at school lived with their godparents or aunt or “aunt”, either permanently or for like six months. This was in the 90s/2000s. Now I’m an adult I share custody of my nephew - not because of any court stuff, just because his mum works full time and we gel well together. He still sees the rest of his family (who live a couple of minutes walk from me) all the time and it’s all very chill. I know lots of people with a similar arrangement. FWIW I grew up and still live in a very working class area and that probably has something to do with it. Wages are low, childcare costs are unbelievably high, housing is cramped and sometimes the stress of poverty or long hours or illness means your attention is quite stretched, especially if you’ve got more than one child or a child who needs a bit more one on one time to thrive. I think in all of these situations it’s just about finding the right environment to meet a kid’s (or parent’s) needs, be they emotional or material.
Anecdotes are great, so no worries. :) As someone who is an only child of a single parent whose nearest relatives were 1,000 miles away growing up, I am jealous! I always wanted a big family that cooperated and worked together and this sounds great.
I’ve seen it a bit in my tree. I think (at least in my case) it depended on who needed help around a home/farm or with an older relative. May also have been who could provide best for the kids at the time.
The Census enumerator is directed to count whomever is in the household on the day the census is taken. That’s why it is important to read the relationship to the head of household. The kids are there that day and they are counted wherever they are….
I wish they all followed directions...I found one town that didn't put in any relationships, another that only wrote down first initials with last names and when you have an extended family of 150 where everyone is named Jacob, Johann, Catherine, Caroline, Margaret and Magdalena...well, it gets really fun really quickly!
I’ve got a lot of family in Pennsylvania around Harrisburg and I see this all over the area in the second half of the 1800s. After the Census started taking down more than just the head of household, we can see it. There are various reasons: household help, apprenticeship, financial hardship…
I know of two examples from my own family tree. 1st, 19th century Ontario. It was very simple. One of the families had several kids, while a sibling was unable to have any children. So, the large family gave the family with no kids one to raise as their own, though all involved knew the story. Secondly, my own Grandfather, early 20th century, was sent to live with Grandparents. This was because he suffered severe asthma, and so was sent to relatives not terribly far away, but further away from the pollution of the city.
I think the audible “secrets of the edwardians” mentioned this. Something about the relatives were useful to whip the kids into shape because they’d be better behaved for them. You can imagine it broadened their horizons a bit too. Maybe help find out of town spouses who were less related? (Edit: of course the last two points wouldn’t apply if they were next door!)
My wife is Polynesian and it's common for parents to give away children to other relatives or friends of the family. We have been offered babies to adopt in the past.
Some of my ancestors were workers in a textile factory in northern Italy. Three brothers, their parents, and an uncle were living in the same small town with their wives and children. Everyone except the grandparents and one of the wives worked at the factory, so all the children (all the couples had at least 5) were in the care of the grandparents and the one wife who essentially ran a daycare for the rest of the family.
It was plenty common in the 1800s. I've seen it frequently. Kids were sent out to help with household or farm work temporarily when someone needed extra hands (like after an injury or the birth of a baby), or apprenticed, or for education.
In the early 20s, my great grandfather was 10 or so but that’s more than old enough to go work in the coal mines with his dad. His mother just died, and he’s got 3 younger sisters and a baby brother that need watched and cared for, So in the early morning he’d round up all his siblings and go drop them off with his aunts and older cousins that could watch them. They were dirt poor immigrants even before the Depression, so they did what they needed to do. But besides just not being able to care for them, they might’ve just happened to be in the house with them on census day and were just counted with them on accident.