U.S. definition of “orphan” has expanded …

… apparently as a reaction to activism around rights of unwed mothers to raise their children? What is going on here?

My old government link to the definition of “orphan” under U.S. law is broken. Not that I ever liked that definition, but it was one I knew. You can find a non-government link and that definition that I remember here:

Who is Considered an Orphan?

Under U.S. immigration law, a foreign-born child is an orphan if he or she does not have any parents because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. A foreign-born child is also an orphan if his or her sole or surviving parent is not able to take proper care of the child and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption.

Now, is it just my imagination or have they expanded the definition? Could it possibly be because certain people are actually standing up for unwed mothers in places like Korea? AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ICELAND!?

Here’s the crazy new definition written by apparently by … crazy people:

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides a definition of an orphan for the purposes of immigration to the United States.

A child may be considered an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. The child of an unwed mother or surviving parent may be considered an orphan if that parent is unable to care for the child properly and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption. The child of an unwed mother may be considered an orphan, as long as the mother does not marry (which would result in the child’s having a stepfather) and as long as the child’s biological father has not legitimated the child. If the father legitimates the child or the mother marries, the mother is no longer considered a sole parent. The child of a surviving parent may also be an orphan if the surviving parent has not married since the death of the other parent (which would result in the child’s having a stepfather or stepmother).

8 responses to “U.S. definition of “orphan” has expanded …

  1. Hope your wedding was a blast?

  2. I’ve started a petition “A Father’s Right To Parent”:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view/tell_your_legislator_to_writeenact_a_fathers_right_to_parent_bill

    If enacted, fathers would have to be found, DNA tested, and their signatures must be on the relinquishment forms.

    Too many children are turned into orphans and bastards by our government. It needs to stop NOW.

  3. It’s like going backwards. Honestly, so frustrating.

  4. I want to know what “big shot” in our government had the authority to change the actual definition of the word “orphan”. My bet is on Hillary Clinton.

  5. The United Nations defines orphanhood in this way:

    a single orphan is a child who has lost one parent by death.

    a double orphan is a child who has lost both parents by death.

    The usual definitions of orphans are:
    a half orphan is a child who has lost one parent by death.

    a full orphan is a child who has lost both parents by death.

    Also, a child given up for adoption (under any circumstances) and adopted by two parents can suffer the loss of one or both adoptive parents by death. That child experiences orphanhood.

    This new legal definition of orphan is disgusting. Manipulation of the facts.

    I lost my natural mother by her death at my age of three months. That is a fact of my life. I was adopted and both adoptive parents lived during my childhood.

    I am very acutely aware of the facts of life and death that lead to my permanent separation from my natural family.

    Too bad those in control are not clued into the facts of life and reality.

  6. I don’t think the definition has “expanded” to take away the rights of unwed mothers to their children (at least I think that is what you are saying, right?). The new definition still makes clear that unwed mothers must have put in writing that they have released their child for adoption.

    What the new definition does add is rights for a future spouse. If the unwed mother does marry, than she is no longer considered an unwed mother, and can no longer unilaterally release her child for adoption.

    If anything, this definition makes it harder (if not impossible) for mothers who marry to release their child for adoption. No?

  7. My Stepfather died when i was fourteen and my mother is still alive am i an half Orphan?

Thank you for visiting my blog. I no longer have time to update this blog regularly, but I appreciate your comments, even though I cannot respond to all of them. All comments (except spam) have been allowed to go through unmoderated since June 16, 2014. Any comments you see prior to that date have been read and approved by me. Thanks again, and wishing you peace and blessings.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s