Twins conceived after dad died won't get benefits
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says a man's children who were born through artificial insemination after his death cannot get Social Security survivor benefits.
The high court on Monday unanimously ruled that twins born to Robert Capato's surviving wife Karen did not qualify under the survivor benefits law.
Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_ARTIFICIAL_INSEMINATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)as I'm sure they did not wish to set a precedent that could be abused even with sperm donors.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I understand these were very unique circumstances that are not likely to be repeated with any frequency. At the same time with advances in fertility medicine this could open the door to substantial abuse.
no_hypocrisy
(46,080 posts)the rights of beneficiaries, you'll never be able to settle an estate as the possibilities for heirs would be interminable until the last sperm has been utilized, perhaps centuries after the Testator's/Decedent's death. And by extension, the same goes to determining a Social Security beneficiary. You could have "survivors" decades, centuries later making applications for benefits.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)An excellent Ginsburg opinion on statutory construction and Chevron deference--no activist judge here!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)What strikes me is the intent of the father and the reason he froze the sperm. He wanted their prior child to have a sibling.
I think the legality the couple may have missed was getting any children that might have been conceived using that frozen sperm added to his will. In a sense, they are children that the husband intended to have, but they didn't give them a clear legal status via his will.
Imagine this scenario ... he gets the news that his cancer will kill him within a month. They want a sibling for their other child. And so he and his wife conceive a child the "old fashioned way".
He dies a month later, and she gives birth 8 months after that.
What is the difference?
He is dying. They decide to have another child. They take actions to conceive it. The child is born after the father dies. The child is still his child.
I think if the couple made their intent apparent via the will, this goes the other way.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)under intestacy statue because they are conceived during a marital union. Here ginsburg makes the point that there is no intestacy statue that will cover these children because they were conceived after the marital union was over. should states update their intestacy statutes to cover for such children then social security would have to revise how they interpreted the regulations. Florida intestacy statue does not provide for these children although other jurisdictions might.
In invoking chevron deference ginsburg is advocating for a non judicial interpretation of the social security statute. this is quite conservative.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I think writing the potential children into the will might have made the decision different.
And ... imagine if the couple froze an embryo, not just the sperm. In that case, the child would have been "conceived" while they were still married.
Also ... Ginsberg gets into what the writers of the earlier laws "envisioned" ... I'd love to see that standard applied to the 2nd Amendment. Did the founders "envision" weapons beyond single shot pistols and muskets?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)a testator.
The state of Florida does not provide for these children.
As for Ginsburg's analysis, determining legislative intent is the cornerstone of statutory interpretation. One can often look to legislative intent when crafting a judicial doctrine. Here, the intent of Congress was clear...the intestacy regimes of the States were to determine who got SSA benefits in those States. The Third circuit erred in applying the wrong subsection, creating a judicial remedy that superseded agency oversight impermissably.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Any opinion that turned sperm into the legal equivalent of babies would add weight to the pro-life argument.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)That will be my opinion too. The pro-life will interpret that to be support for life beginning at conception.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Mon May 21, 2012, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
This is important for the Third Circuit (the Court this was an appeal from) sits in Philadelphia PA, and Pennsylvania law as to "Legitimate" children is all children are legitimate (Pennsylvania gave up on the idea of defining who was legitimate and illegitimate after it lost the case as to when a parent can bring a child support case, from Colonial times till the 1980s, Pennsylvania said such a support claim had be be brought within seven years of the Child's birth, in the 1980s the US Supreme Court ruled that Unconstitutional for a child under 18 could not bring such an action till they turned 18 and thus denied equal protection of the laws, Pennsylvania had to change its support law to permit anyone who had custody of any child under 18 to bring an action for support).
As part of the change in the law, Pennsylvania also had to address the issue of who would inherit. After several attempts, the General Assembly gave up and declared all children legitimate.
I bring this up for in this action the US Supreme Court said this is a matter up to STATE LAW, NOT Federal Law. Federal Law says any child who can inherit under State law can get Social Security survivors benefits. Under Pennsylvania law these children are Legitimate and thus can inherit and thus entitled to Social Security Survivors benefits. These children are the residents of New Jersey, thus New Jersey law may apply, but I suspect New Jersey law is similar to Pennsylvania law, but I do not have any direct knowledge on that subject and the US Supreme Court avoided the whole issue of which State Law controls for the Third Circuit had ruled State Law was irrelevant since Federal Law control this situation (the Actual point of law the US Supreme Court reversed, the US Supreme Court ruled Federal Law does NOT preempt State law on this issue).
SSA had ruled that the Children benefits of SSA was determined by Florida State law for the Father had lived and died in Florida. For that reason Florida law Controlled this case NOT Pennsylvania or New Jersey law. Florida apparently retains the differences between legitimate and Illegitimate children. If Florida law controls in this situation, then the Children are NOT eligible for Social Security Survivors benefits for the simple reason Florida law does NOT permit them to inherit from their father for they were NOT Conceived before their father's death (The Federal Trial Court may have to resolved this issue for the State of Florida unless they is a State of Florida decision on the issue, something I doubt. That would permit another set of appeals on the issue of what is Florida law).
Thus this case is NOT over, it now turns on which state inheritance law applies, and what is that law is case of artificially impregnated widows? The Third Circuit decided that the better approach was to resolved the issue under Federal Law, but that has been rejected, but it is still an issue up for litigation.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)and outside marriage.
This is an issue of children who were not even conceived till after the biological father's death.
It makes sense for any child who is conceived before death, whether inside or outside of marriage, to be covered by Social Security laws. But to say that a sperm that survives its donor is legally equivalent to a living fetus or child doesn't -- and any precedent that says otherwise would strengthen abortion opponents.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And then noted that in at least FIVE STATES and the proposed Uniform Probate Code, these Children would be HEIRS of the Father AND thus eligible for Social Security Survivor's benefits (And then ruled that since the decision of what state law applies in this case was NOT applied by the Trial Court, it remanded the case to that court to make a ruling on that issue).
My comment as to "legitimate" vs. "illegitimate" Children was to show that the traditional rule was a matter of STATE LAW, not FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY LAW. Under the Common Law, an illegitimate Child could NOT inherit from EITHER PARENT. Thus under the Social Security act such a child could NOT claim any survivor's benefits if the State the parent lived in when he or she died did not permit such a child to inherit. In the 1800s a move was made to permit such illegitimate children to inherit from their mother. In the 20th Century the move was to extend such right of inheritance to the father of the illegitimate child.
Such expansion of the right of inheritance under State Law, also expanded who could get Survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. If a state expanded who was a heir, that expansion also made the child a "Surviving child" under the Social Security Act. Only a "Surviving Child" under the act had the right to claim Social Security Survivor's benefits under the section in litigation.
Carnage251
(562 posts)State law has nothing to do with a federal benefits program administrated by the government.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If you read the opinion, even Justice Ginsburg accepts that as FEDERAL LAW. i.e. a child gets SSA Survivors benefits ONLY if he meets one of the two conditions, one is that he or she is an HEIR under state law, OR eligible under some other section of the Social Security act (This later section was NOT at issue in this case). Thus the Court ruled that it is a matter of STATE LAW if these children are entitled to benefits.
The Court noted that had the Father been living in Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, California or Iowa these children would be his heirs and thus eligible for Social Security. California and Iowa limits heirs to children born within two years of the Father' death, Louisiana says such children are heirs if born within three years of the Father's death, Colorado. North Dakota and the Uniform Probate Code limits such inheritance to children, born with 45 months of the death of a parent or is "in utero" within three years of the death of the Father. Since the Social Security act says if a Child is an heir under state law, in each of these states these Children would be eligible for Social Security Survivors benefits. In States where the limit to the birth of an heir is the traditional nine months, these children would NOT be heirs under State Law and not be an heir is also NOT eligible for Social Security Survivor's benefits.
Thus BY FEDERAL LAW, this is a subject of STATE LAW. The Social Security Act is noted for this, in areas where it is NOT clear, State law governs UNLESS it is clear that Congress intended a Federal Rule. The Court ruled that was NOT Congress's intention for Federal Law to determine who is the child of someone, thus who is a child of someone is a matter of State Law based on how the State handles that child as an Heir to the person who died.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)While I can somewhat understand the desire to have those children, let's face it, he had died. Sometimes it's a good idea to move on.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)could conceive a sibling for their other child.
I think the legality they may have missed was getting any children that might have been conceived using that frozen sperm added to his will. In a sense, they are children that the husband intended to have.
Imagine this scenario ... he gets the news that his cancer will kill him within a month. They want a sibling for their other child. And so he and his wife conceive a child the "old fashioned way". He dies a month later, and she gives birth 8 months after that.
What is the difference? He is dying. They decide to have another child. They take actions to conceive it. The child is born after the father dies. The child is still his child.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)For all the Court knows, he could have donated the sperm two years earlier so HE could participate in raising another child.
The difference in the situation you describe is that in your example it can be proven that the father's actions caused the pregnancy -- AND the child was conceived before he died, not afterwards.
In this case, the mother and the mother alone caused the pregnancy. Using the father's sperm was no different than using the sperm of any donor. Once the father was dead, he couldn't give his consent to the use of his sperm.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)So yes, the couple were hoping for a sibling and the man had the misfortune to die suddenly. But what if he'd been killed in a car accident when wife was first pregnant? People do die, and sometimes they die suddenly and at a relatively young age.
It's all well and good to freeze sperm and make use of it later on, but there does need to be an end to various things. This is why trusts cannot be "in perpetuity", and that all beneficiaries of a trust need to be named when the trust is established.
I think what bothers me the most is that it feels to me as though this woman (and she's not alone) is stuck in the past. Rather than grieving the loss of her husband, and then moving on, she clings to him by having his children more than a year after he died.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Even to the most anti-choice psycho the sperm was was not a child the day the father died.
No-brainer decision.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Those five states have adopted anywhere from a 2 year period after death to a 45 month (3 years 9 months) rule as to such sperm. The 45 month rule is part of the proposed Uniform probate Code (What is proposed to be adopted by all the states).
The US Supreme Court even mention the above five states AND the Uniform Probate Code in its decision. All the court did here was to say this is a matter of State Law and thus the case was remained to the Trial Judge to determine which state law applies AND what is the State law of the State whose law is applicable. In this case New Jersey (Where the Children are living) or Florida (Where the Father was living when he died).
may3rd
(593 posts)bet they qualify under the WIC programs
