Woman Tracks Down Birth Mother - Finds Out She Is Jell-O Heiress

[matcom]

<snip>

When Longview resident Beth McNabb set out to find her birth mother, she had no idea the woman who gave her up for adoption was heiress to the Jell-O fortune.

McNabb reunited with her mother, Barbara (Woodward) Piel, and her two half-sisters in 1988. Only then did McNabb find out she was the product of an affair Piel had with a married man -- and that McNabb's great-grandfather, entrepreneur Orator Francis Woodward, bought a flavored gelatin business for $450 in 1899 that would one day become a household name.

Piel, a resident of Genesee County, N.Y., married another man after adopting out her daughter. She died in 2003.

Now McNabb, 51, is in a legal battle with Fleet Bank to claim her one-third share of the $10 million trust that was to be divided among Barbara W. Piel's children, the New York Law Journal reports.

Friday, a New York appellate court panel ruled that McNabb is legally considered a "descendant" and "living child" of Piel under the trusts Piel's mother set up in 1926 and 1963. The ruling overturned a lower court's December 2005 decision that said as an "adopted-out" daughter, McNabb didn't qualify for a share of the trust.

Fleet Bank is seeking permission to appeal.

Wednesday, a receptionist at Northwest Psychological Resources in Longview, where McNabb is office manager, said McNabb was referring all media inquiries to her attorney, Paul Boylan. Boylan, reached by telephone Wednesday in LeRoy, NY, said he and McNabb aren't giving any interviews until the case is resolved.

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2007/03/29/area_news/news06.txt

[Jimbo S]

1. Golddigger

[dropkickpa]

2. Doubt it

She sounds like good people, if you read the article, she and her husband are foster parents who have sheltered over 160 kids.

[Jimbo S]

14. Her family are the people who *raised* her.

Since she wasn't part of the Piel family, I don't see how she is entitled to any inheritence money. Legally or morally.

[Lance_Boyle]

3. Didn't she legally cease to be

"one of Barbara W. Peil's children" when she was put up for adoption? I don't understand how the court could rule any differently.

[Courtesy Flush]

15. Not in my state

In my state your biological children are always your heirs. You cannot disinherit an adopted child, or a child you surrendered for adoption. It's a strange law, when you consider how secretive the records have always been. How can you inherit from a parent you're not allowed to know about? The secrecy is not as strict as it used to be, but it's still there.

[Heidi]

4. In my opinion, Mrs. McNabb is no more entitled to a share of her biological family's wealth

than her biological family is entitled to _her_ wealth. I wonder, if the tables were turned, and Mrs. McNabb's biological family had sought her out and then sued to gain a share of her assets, how Mrs. McNabb would feel. :shrug:

[realisticphish]

7. yeah, i can see that

i'm not a lawyer, but i would think that since parents terminate guardianship, then it should work the other way as well.

[youthere]

5. I'm sorry..

but the words "JELL-O HEIRESS" just struck me funny.
:rofl:

[Samurai_Writer]

6. She has no legal standing.

As a reunited birthmother, and an adoption search and reunion volunteer, I have literally met hundreds of adoptees and birth parents. 99% of the time, the adoptees and adopted parents are FAR more well off than the birth parents. When you surrender a child for adoption, you terminate ALL parental rights and responsibilities -- including inheritance. That child is the legal child of the adopted parents. I don't see where this woman thinks she has a right to her birth family's money.

On the other hand, I have written my birth son into my will. I don't have much, but I wanted to make a gesture to let him know I consider him family, adoption or not.

[grace0418]

9. That's good of you. I guess that's what I was talking about.

A family with that much money couldn't at least provide for this woman in some way? That seems harsh to me. Maybe it's perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it right.

I think what you did was wonderful. :hi:

[matcom]

10. what about her 'birth right'?

I keep thinking of the Catholic Church and the whole celibacy thing. As I understand it, they were worried about illegitimate children of Priests coming back and trying to claim land the church owned as their 'birth right'.

is there no such thing?

[Samurai_Writer]

13. No such thing as 'birth right' in adoption

When a person is adopted, they become 'as if born to the adopted parents' in the legal sense. It's actually worded that way in adoption proceedings.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. What's tell is that her birth mother had fifteen years to acknowledge her legally and didn't.

There may be reasons inherent in the way the trust was set up, but I wonder why such a wealthy woman, aware of the size of her estate, didn't address the issue legally if she intended to recognize this birth child.

[JoDog]

16. Not familiar with the adoption laws

I don't know much of anything about this topic, RadFem, but I wonder if the legal standard you mentioned--"When you surrender a child for adoption, you terminate ALL parental rights and responsibilities -- including inheritance" came into use AFTER this woman was born and surrendered for adoption. Were the adoption laws a lot different 51 years ago then they are today?

I think that if the laws about legal termination of parental rights were different--or perhaps non-exsistant--at the time of this lady's birth, then her case would have to be decided under what was the legal standard circa 1955, not what has emerged as the legal standard since then. What was the actual contract (for lack of a better word) that the birth mother agreed to?

Always hoping for the best in humanity, I do hope that this is not just about the money (but when that much money is in play, well, it does become an 400-pound gorilla and impossible to ignore). If she wins, perhaps she will use the money toward the cause of foster kids, which is something she has already devoted her time and resources to. And maybe there is a note of bitterness to this. As a poster down thread said, it is fairly cold of a wealthy family to allow a child to be given away without trying to do anything for her.

[Samurai_Writer]

18. The adoption laws today are basically the same as back then

The 'closed adoption' system that we know today, and that was even more prevalent back in the 1950s was instituted in the 1920s-1930s. Before that, adoption records were not sealed, and many children actually kept their birth names if they were older when adopted (my grandfather being one of them).

Termination of parental rights is the first legal step in any adoption procedure. It is basically the same in every state in the US, although some might have a waiting period where the birth parent can hypothetically change their mind (many don't anymore). Once the termination is done, the birth parents give up all rights and responsibilities. Period, end of story.

As for this adoptee, yes she's wonderful, fostered 160 kids, etc. That doesn't mean she is more deserving of her birth family's fortune as anyone else would be. Or, if the situation was reversed and she was the one with the fortune and died, would people be asking if her birth family (birth parents or siblings) had a right to a share of her fortune? I highly doubt it.

[JoDog]

24. Thanks for the info

[Courtesy Flush]

17. Not in all states. See my post above.

I was adopted by my step dad, and I work in the adoption system in my state (though my current job duties don't include adoption). In Louisiana a surrendered child is still an heir.

Of course, Louisiana law is famous for being the exception to the norm. I'll allow that laws change all the time, as I haven't kept up with adoption law in the last few years.

[Samurai_Writer]

19. Yes, Louisiana law is completely different from most states

In just about every regard. Too bad this woman wasn't born in Louisiana, then. ;)

[grace0418]

8. Personally I think it's pretty cold that a family with that much money would allow

(or maybe force) their daughter to give up her baby without at least providing for her in some way. I realize the world was different 50 years ago but I would think they would've at least have the decency to set up some kind of trust fund for her, even anonymously.

[Samurai_Writer]

12. To understand why they might do that...

There is a very good book out called "Wake Up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy and Race before Roe v. Wade" by Rickie Solinger about closed adoption during that time period.

Even as late as 1978 (when I surrendered my son for adoption), families were still 'sending girls to visit their aunt' (ie, carting them off to maternity homes and forcing surrenders). When the girls came back it was 'as if' it never happened -- just like, in adoption procedures, the baby is legally 'as if' he or she was born to the adoptive parents. That is actually the term that was used in adoption finalizations.

[grace0418]

20. I get that, and had some experience with it in my family.

I just think that a family with that kind of wealth should've provided something for that child. Not that they were legally obligated to in any way, just that they should have. There had to be some way to do it anonymously, even back then. Lawyers for rich families can work out all sorts of loopholes.

[Samurai_Writer]

22. But rich families were even more secretive when it came to this

There was a girl in my maternity home that was a daughter of a U.S. Senator at the time. She was there under an assumed name and we were only allowed to 'know' her first name. She was one of the very few girls who did not see her baby (we were allowed to see our babies before we signed the termination papers -- it was an 'enlightened' policy that had just started). This was in 1978!

The mindset at the time (1940s-1970s) is that after the fact, the birth and adoption NEVER HAPPENED. Go on with your life, get married, have YOUR OWN CHILDREN (yes, they used that exact phrase). Birth families would have NEVER acknowledged the adoptee in any legal or social sense. Even 'anonymously'.

[texas1928]

21. Ok but when their are no heirs, they search and if they find an adopted out baby...

They become the heir. What of that.

[Samurai_Writer]

23. I've never heard of that happening.

If you have proof of that, I'd like to see it.