In August 1999, shortly after the Capatos‘ wedding in New Jersey, Mr. Capato was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and was told that the chemotherapy he required might render him sterile. The Capatos, however, wanted children, and thus, before he began his course of chemotherapy, Mr. Capato deposited his semen in a sperm bank, where it was frozen and stored. ...
Mr. Capato‘s health deteriorated in 2001, and he died in Florida in March of 2002. ...
Shortly after Mr. Capato‘s death, Ms. Capato began in vitro fertilization using the frozen sperm of her husband. She conceived in January 2003 and gave birth to twins on September 23, 2003, eighteen months after Mr. Capato‘s death. ...
In October 2003, Ms. Capato applied for surviving child‘s insurance benefits on behalf of the twins based on her husband‘s earnings record. The Social Security Administration denied her claim ...
What is before us is a discrete set of circumstances and the narrow question posed by those circumstances: are the undisputed biological children of a deceased wage earner and his widow ―children within the meaning of the [Social Security] Act? The answer is a resounding ―Yes.
I think it is past time for Congress to get over whatever squeamishness it may have, address this issue and end the litigation.
I say if the child is born more than nine months after the wage earner's death the child should not be eligible. She started the treatments after the wage earner's death, so that was her decision.
ReplyDeleteSince survivor benefits are designed to replace the lost earning potential and subsequent ability to support a minor child, the decision of the widow to deliberately get pregnant when she knew that the father was not available to support the child should mean she is out of luck.
ReplyDeleteCongress should consider this issue. The facts of procreation are different now than they were when child's benefits were first introduced. So, we should consider the intent of the law and proceed accordingly. The purpose of survivors' benefits is to provide for lost income resulting from the deah of the parent. That loss is ongoing and does not stop at any particular point. After all, the law doesn't say that after 36 months or so, kids who turn up (216h kids, for example)long after the father's death are out of luck. It says they are kids and we put them on. I could tell you stories about long haul truckers and bigamists with serial families, but the point is clear. This circumstances is one not foreesable originally. Fix it, Congress!
ReplyDelete"After all, the law doesn't say that after 36 months or so, kids who turn up (216h kids, for example)long after the father's death are out of luck."
ReplyDeleteYes, but the children were born while the father was alive. Filing for benefits long after the death because you just found out you were eligible, is not the same thing as a child being born long after the death to be eligible.
If Congress needs to pass a law to stop this from happening so be it.
Conceivably (pun not intended) there could be dozens of children born to a deceased man, decades after his death. Men with high PIA's could sell their sperm to be used by multiple women and all could file survivor claims. Congress needs to act.
ReplyDeleteThink Congress has a few more important issues to address these days than this bit of esoterica.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how esoteric this situation is anymore.
ReplyDeleteThese cases do come through hearing offices, even out here in the boondocks. They do require quite a bit of extra attention, which could otherwise be spent on other cases in the backlog, and the results vary on a case-by-case basis.
Congress should really take a look.