Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFrom 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 |
All Things in Moderation 
Nope. She purposely set out to be a single parent. She can deal with the ramifications.
But I would add that this speaks to the flaws of having a “one-size fits-all” forced retirement/life insurance scheme.
LikeLike
Mike, if you missed it, there was a fairly lengthy discussion earlier on this. It will be interesting now to go back and review the previous post. Previous post is here, 11/16/2011 if I cannot get the link to work.
LikeLike
Okie,
Ah right. I remembered that I’d had an on-line conversation about this already, but forgot where. Thanks.
The link works for me, BTW.
LikeLike
Oh right. Now I remember that thread …. sigh.
LikeLike
I think its a scam: deny benefits.
What j find odd is the NPR report that the states define who the beneficiaries are, not the feds.
LikeLike
as the biological offspring of a married couple.
That seems open and shut to me. When one member of a married couple dies, they are no longer married. There is the deceased spouse and the widow/er. Ergo,the child may be the biological offspring of the couple, strictly speaking, but not of a married couple, as they were conceived after the death of one of the members of the couple, when the couple was no longer married.
LikeLike
KW- well put. After death, the former spouse is essentially just a donor.
LikeLike
There are complexities here that I think you’re all not unpacking (loved the Daisy interview on This American Life). I should note that a good friend of mine (Snick) was in a very similar situation. Her husband was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer shortly after they were married. It’s one of those put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye kind of cancers. He was young, which is unusual for this disease, so he had a chance. He fought and he died.
During the course of all this, he made a deposit at the sperm bank and they conceived twins through in vitro. Their father died when they were one year old. They receive survivors benefits. I must comment that I think it’s out of bounds to call this a scam. Had my friend’s husband died while she was pregnant, she may have been in a similar situation. I’d be angry with anyone who called her a scammer in my presence. Brian’s comment comes pretty close. Read my friend’s blog. It is NOT EASY raising several young children on your own, particularly while bereaved.
This woman and her husband wanted their child to have biological siblings. More than anything, I believe that drove her decision. And, yes, she believes that they are her husband’s children and so deserve survivor’s benefits. As for him being her ex-husband, I recommend any of us with one surviving parent to refer to the deceased spouse as the ex-husband or ex-wife. Then run.
Kevin notes that these chlidren were conceived after the death of one spouse. In truth, that’s where I draw the line myself. She started in vitro after his death. The children were conceived about 9 months after he died, though I haven’t seen reports as to when she started the course.
Let’s play with this a little. Let’s say a couple was actively trying to conceive. Hubby has sperm with poor motility or whatever causes one to use in vitro as an alternative to in flagrante delecto. The wife is at the clinic to undergo in vitro when hubby is killed in a car accident. Do we determine survivor’s benefits by his time of death?
Let’s assume he’s brain dead. Should he be kept alive long enough for a treatment to take. After all, as long as his heart is beating, he would be the father. As soon as it stops, he’s simply a sperm donor.
We can even go further. Some couples will have the man store sperm as a precaution for future events. I work in a laboratory with mutagenic chemicals, so maybe I should have taken that precaution. Hubby gets in the car accident and enters a persistent vegetative state. The couple had made no plans for starting a family, but the wife can now make the decision to conceive a child on her own. Is he a sperm donor or a parent?
In the case of sperm donors, I believe there are specific legal protections so that the donor does not become legally liable for any resulting offspring. That’s not the case in a situation such as this. Then, there’s the celebrated case of a divorced couple battling over frozen embryos.
BB
LikeLike
That went on a bit. I’m not upset with anyone, but think there are some interesting twists here that go beyond the early discussion. As I have indirect experience with the issues raised here, I think it’s worth having that input.
Snick has had the occasional troll show up on the blog. She tends to deal with them using good humor. Her commenters tend to smack down the troll. She did make the choice to undergo in vitro at a time when the bell was tolling for John.
All of these issues impact only a tiny fraction of cases. I’m not arguing for this woman’s case, but believe it made it up to SCOTUS as there are related issues worth addressing. If it was such a clear case, then the appeals court wouldn’t have ruled in her favor and the Supremes wouldn’t have taken it up.
BB
LikeLike