… 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:
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:
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).