From the
Los Angeles Times:
The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a child conceived through in vitro fertilization after a father's death was entitled to a Social Security survivor's benefit.
At least 100 such claims are pending at the Social Security Administration while officials try to resolve how the Depression-era law should be interpreted in an era of modern reproductive technology. ...
Karen Capato brought such a claim on behalf of her twins, who were born in 2003, about 18 months after her husband, Robert, died of cancer. The couple had married in Washington state in the late 1990s and later moved to Florida to start a business. After being diagnosed with esophageal cancer, Robert deposited semen in a sperm bank.
No one questioned that he was the father of the twins, but Social Security officials denied the mother's claim for survivor benefits for them. They reasoned that under the law in Florida, children who were not conceived at the time of a parent's death are not entitled to inherit his property.
4 comments:
Under State law there is a sensible basis for providing some cut-off date for children born after death. Otherwise, no probate estate could ever be settled. Children could surface years after death and make claims against assets that were already distributed to the other heirs. How that translates into eligibility for Social Security benefits is a much more complicated question.
seems pretty easy...no benefits.
I think the SC will side with the agency and prohibit survivor's benefits to children conceived through IVF. If the regulations are going to be changed, it needs to come from Congress (which could fix various other issues with the regulations at the same time).
Its a very basic question, the agency follows the state estate laws for determining entitlement to inherit property. Each state is different and the agency follows no one rule set. The Agency will win. The problem is not with IVF its with the State of Florida Estate laws.
Post a Comment