All Things in Moderation

From NPR this morning, an interesting question being posed to SCOTUS about survivor benefits from Social Security for children conceived after the beneficiary’s death:

Two eras clash on Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court, when a law written in 1939 is applied to in vitro fertilization. At issue is whether children conceived through in vitro fertilization after the death of a parent are eligible for Social Security survivors benefits.

[snip]

The government concedes the twins are Robert’s biological children. But the Social Security Administration says that it determines eligibility based on the inheritance laws of each state, and in Florida, where the couple lived, children conceived after the death of a parent cannot inherit property, unless specifically provided for in a will.

Karen Capato counters that under the 1939 Social Security Act, survivors benefits go to any child of a covered individual, and the word child is “plainly defined” as the biological offspring of a married couple. She contends that the section of the law dealing with state inheritance statutes only kicks in when the “biological parentage is disputed.”

Is A Baby Conceived After Dad’s Death A ‘Survivor’?

What do you all think?

Mark adds:

The previous post and comments are found at:  https://all-things-in-moderation.com/2011/11/16/do-the-twins-get-ss-survivors-benefits-i-report-you-decide/

Let me add that NPR did a lousy job of presenting the matter.  This is a statutory and not a constitutional case.  The statute requires that the beneficiary must have been dependent upon the deceased individual at the time of his or her death. Citing a case that held that a fetus in esse at the time of its parent’s death had an expectancy of dependency on that lost parent, the Circuit reversed the trial court on the issue of whether these were children, but remanded for a fact finding as to whether they were dependent on their biological father at the time of his death.  I expect a per curiam decision that this is not a contestable fact issue in this case, and a reinstatement of the denial of benefits. There is no way to stretch from a fetal anticipation of support from a parent who dies during gestation to a fetal expectancy of a parent who does not exist at the time of conception.  The Court need not reach the definition of “children”, so minimalism says they should not address that in this case.  I will go out on a limb and say that there is no way these twins can qualify for benefits.

Filed under: social security, Supreme Court | 9 Comments »