Gramps AIO64 5.1.6, Win 10 latest version
I have a family where the ‘child’ joined that family as a late teenager / young adult. The ‘child’ was not adopted nor were they formally fostered. They became part of the family at the invitation of their uncle and aunt, to take advantage of better job opportunities.
Would the relationship ‘sponsored’ cover this sort of situation? Or does ‘sponsored’ mean the provision of remote financial support a the family to a child?
That reminds me of some cases in my family tree where a child was living with relatives other than parents for some time. In the census, they might show up as “boarder” or the actual relation, such as niece or nephew. They were certainly part of the household but I don’t add them to the Family object. (That’s just my choice, not saying it’s the “right” way.)
You might be interested in the House Timeline addon gramplet.
I have created a custom type “Ward” for this type of scenario. But in most cases the child is a non-relative. It is a way to answer the question… “Who was that person that was always at family functions?”
I do not always add these people to a family. I am more inclined to do so if they were mentioned in obituaries, etc or appeared in more than one census record.
Becoming a “Ward” in the US includes formal legal processes, just like fostering or adoption.
This sounds more informal, like the “hosting” done for foreign exchange students. Although that has grown to have processes (background check, home check) like becoming a legal guardian. And it can mean a stipend or tax exemption for the host family… which doesn’t seem to be the case described.
But “Hosted” seems closer than “Ward”
I was actually an exchange student several (many) years ago. I used Sponsored as my link to my host family.
I do have some children that were fostered by families through the state. I have used Foster as the relation. When they have appeared in a census, Ward is the term most often used along with Boarder.
Yes, ‘hosted’ sounds better than ‘ward’ to me but even that suggests a distance in the relationship that wasn’t present. The uncle and aunt had no children of their own, the ‘child’ they cared for and nurtured had no father. They were definitely a ‘family’.
I think I’ll go and read a thesaurus and see if that helps me.
Thank you all for your input, it has helped.
A chatbot called it “kinship care”. Which is appropriate but not a term I’d ever heard before.
“Kin” might be a good, compact relationship term, though. You could use “None” for Partner who was only related by marriage. Maybe cousin or nibling for the related partner? It might also be considered a relationship like Godparent.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.