QUESTION
You asked whether the claimant is the child of the number holder for determining the
claimant’s eligibility for child’s insurance benefits (CIB) on the number holder’s
earnings record based on an Order of Filiation from the Chancery Court of Harrison
County, Mississippi, ordering and adjudging that the claimant is the legitimate and
legal child of the number holder. If so, you also asked whether the first month of
entitlement to benefits would be August 2015, the month the court issued the Order
of Filiation.
OPINION
Based on the information provided, the claimant is the child of the number holder
for determining the claimant’s eligibility for CIB on the number holder’s earnings
record, and the effective month of the relationship is August 2015, the month of the
court order indicating that the claimant is related to the number holder.
BACKGROUND
B~ (Claimant) applied for child’s survivor’s benefits on the earnings record of J~,
the number holder (NH). According to the information provided, Claimant’s mother and
NH were never married. Rather, an Alabama Certificate of Marriage dated July XX, 2010,
shows Claimant’s mother married J2~. A Certificate of Death shows NH died on January
XX, 2014, and lists H~ County, Mississippi, as NH’s county of residence. NH’s death
certificate lists G~ as NH’s father. A Certificate of Live Birth shows Claimant was
born on September XX, 2014, and lists Claimant’s mother and J2~ as the parents. At
the time of NH’s death, Claimant’s mother stated she was separated from J2~ and lived
with NH. Claimant’s mother provided no independent evidence that she lived with NH.
DNA samples were collected on September XX, 2014, from Claimant, Claimant’s mother,
and NH’s father. DNA test results showed a 99.99% probability that NH’s father is
related to Claimant as a second-degree relative.
On August XX, 2015, the Chancery Court of H~ County, Mississippi, issued an Order
of Filiation based on a joint petition filed by Claimant’s mother, NH’s father, NH’s
mother, and NH’s brother. The court ordered and adjudged that Claimant is NH’s legitimate
and legal child, and ordered that Claimant’s name be changed to B~ to reflect Claimant’s
legitimacy. The court also ordered and adjudged that Claimant’s mother and NH are
Claimant’s biological parents. The court noted that Claimant’s mother and NH’s survivors
all acknowledged Claimant as NH’s biological child. The court found the DNA test results
provided scientific evidence of a familial link between Claimant and NH’s father.
The court also ordered and adjudged that Claimant shall receive Social Security benefits
as NH’s legitimate, biological child, and shall inherit from NH under Mississippi
statutes of descent and distribution.
DISCUSSION
A claimant may be eligible for CIB on the earnings record of an individual who dies
a fully or currently insured individual if the claimant is the insured individual’s
“child.” See Social Security Act (Act) § 202(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(1) (2015).[1] “Child” includes “the child” of an insured individual. See Act § 216(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.354; Astrue v. Capato, 132 S. Ct. 2021, 2027-28 (2012). A claimant may show she is “the child” of a deceased
insured individual, within the meaning of section 216(e)(1), under section 216(h)(2)(A)
or 216(h)(3)(C) of the Act. See Capato, 132 S. Ct. at 2028. Under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, a claimant is considered
“the child” of the insured individual if the claimant could inherit the insured individual’s
intestate personal property under the law of the State in which the insured individual
was domiciled at the time of his death. See Act § 216(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(4).[2]
NH’s Certificate of Death indicates he was domiciled in Mississippi when he died.
Therefore, we look to Mississippi intestacy law to determine whether Claimant is NH’s
child for purposes of section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act. See Act § 216(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(4). Under Mississippi
law, the intestate personal property of a deceased person descends to his or her heirs.
See Miss. Code Ann. § 91-1-11 (West 2015). Heirs include a decedent’s children. See Clark Sand Co., Inc. v. Kelly, 60 So. 3d 149, 159 (Miss. 2011) (citing Miss. Code Ann. §§ 91-1-1 to 91-1-11).
Mississippi law establishes a rebuttable presumption that a child born during a marriage
is legitimate, i.e., the child is the child of the mother’s husband. See Rafferty v. Perkins, 757 So. 2d 992, 995 (Miss. 2000); Perkins v. Thompson (In re Estate of Taylor), 609 So. 2d 390, 394 (Miss. 1992). The presumption of legitimacy is one of the strongest
known to Mississippi law. See Perkins, 609 So. 2d at 394. “A party challenging legitimacy may prevail if he proves beyond
a reasonable doubt that the legal husband of the mother is not, in fact, the biological
father.” Id. “The burden notwithstanding, (dis)proving paternity is a matter of fact, and courts
proceed as with other issues of fact. Any evidence tending to support or deny the
fact may be considered.” Id.
The question in the end is whether the court can say beyond a reasonable doubt, given
the totality of the circumstances as shown by all of the evidence before it, that
the husband is not the father. Necessarily, this standard requires a sensitive assessment
of the evidence of each individual case.
Id. “At common law, [the presumption of legitimacy] was rebutted by showing either that
the husband was incapable of procreating or that the mother and husband were physically
separated at the time of conception.” M.A. v. M.D. (In re B.N.N.), 928 So. 2d 197, 200 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006); see Perkins, 609 So. 2d at 394. However, “the presumption has bowed to realism.” Perkins, 609 So. 2d at 394.
In particular, “[s]cientific and technological advancements have resulted in other
means of rebutting this presumption, such as paternity testing.” M.A., 928 So. 2d at 200 (citing Miss. Code Ann. §§ 93-9-21, 93-9-27);[3] Perkins, 609 So. 2d at 394 (noting that Mississippi courts “accept that blood tests can produce
a high level of discrimination either excluding or including a given male as the father
of a particular child”) (internal quotation marks omitted). While “[g]enetic test
results are admissible as evidence of paternity, but are not necessarily conclusive,”
In re Estate of Grubbs, 753 So. 2d 1043, 1052 (Miss. 2000), genetic testing “may rebut the presumption of
legitimacy.” Rafferty, 757 So. 2d at 995.
Here, the information provided offers strong evidence to rebut the presumption that
Claimant is the legitimate child of J2~, who is identified as the husband of Claimant’s
mother on the Certificate of Marriage, and is identified as Claimant’s father on the
Certificate of Live Birth. The DNA testing showed a 99.99% probability Claimant is
related to NH’s father as a second-degree relative. The DNA testing does not specifically
disprove that J2~ is Claimant’s child, but given the highly unlikely possibility that
B~ is related to NH’s father, the DNA testing strongly indicates that J2~ is not Claimant’s
father.
The court’s Order of Filiation also provides evidence that Claimant is not J2~’s child.
However, the agency is not bound by a state trial court’s determination to which it
was not a party. See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-37c. Nevertheless, the agency is not free to ignore
an adjudication of a state court where the following prerequisites exist: (1) an issue
in a claim for Social Security benefits previously has been determined by a State
court of competent jurisdiction; (2) this issue was genuinely contested before the
State court by parties with opposing interests; (3) the issue falls within the general
category of domestic relations law; and (4) the resolution by the state trial court
is consistent with the law enunciated by the highest court in the state. See SSR 83-37c (adopting Gray v. Richardson, 474 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1973), as national policy).
Here, the court’s Order of Filiation does not meet all the prerequisites in SSR 83-37c.
The court had jurisdiction to decide the issue of Claimant’s legitimacy, which fell
within the general category of domestic relations law. See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-1(1) (stating that the chancery court shall have jurisdiction
upon petition to make legitimate any offspring of petitioner not born in wedlock).
Also, the court’s determination appears to be consistent with Mississippi law. However,
nothing in the Order of Filiation suggests parties with opposing interests genuinely
contested the issue of whether NH is Claimant’s father. No guardian ad litem was appointed
to represent Claimant’s interests. See, e.g., Baker by Williams v. Williams, 503 So. 2d 249, 252-53 (Miss. 1987) (acknowledging that the interests of mother
may not be the same as the interests of child in paternity matter, and lower court
needed to consider appointing guardian ad litem for child). Also, there is no indication
that J2~ was a party, despite being identified on the Certificate of Marriage as the
husband of Claimant’s mother and on the Certificate of Live Birth as Claimant’s father.
Further, although the court ordered and adjudged that Claimant shall receive Social
Security benefits as NH’s legitimate biological child. However, the agency was not
a party and court did not have jurisdiction to order the agency to take such action.
Therefore, the court’s finding that Claimant is NH’s legitimate child is not entitled
to any special significance.
Nevertheless, the court’s determination provides further evidence to rebut the presumption
that J2~ is Claimant’s father. The court ordered and adjudged that Claimant is NH’s
biological, legitimate, and legal child. The court noted that Claimant’s mother and
all of NH’s survivors acknowledged Claimant as NH’s biological child. The court order,
together with the DNA test results and the statements mentioned in the court order,
provides evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to rebut the presumption that Claimant
is the legitimate child of J2~. See Rafferty, 757 So. 2d at 995; Perkins, 609 So. 2d at 394.
Although the court legitimized Claimant in the same order, for purposes of the following
legal analysis we assume Claimant is illegitimate because the evidence presented actually
rebutted the presumption of legitimacy. Mississippi intestacy law provides that an
illegitimate child shall inherit from her father if:
(a) The natural parents participated in a marriage ceremony before the birth of the
child, even though the marriage was subsequently declared null and void or dissolved
by a court; or
(b) There has been an adjudication of paternity or legitimacy before the death of
the intestate; or
(c) There has been an adjudication of paternity after the death of the intestate,
based upon clear and convincing evidence, in an heirship proceeding.
Miss. Code Ann. § 91-1-15(3) (West 2015).[4] In the Order of Filiation, the court found that NH and Claimant’s mother were not
married when Claimant was born and there is no other evidence showing that NH and
Claimant’s mother participated in a marriage ceremony. Further, there is no information
that a court adjudicated NH’s paternity or Claimant’s legitimacy before NH’s death.
Therefore, Claimant could establish a right to inherit from NH only through an adjudication
of paternity after NH’s death based on clear and convincing evidence. See Miss. Code Ann. § 91-1-15(3)(c).
An individual born out-of-wedlock seeking to establish inheritance rights from a deceased
putative father “must offer clear and convincing proof of paternity.” Grubbs, 753 So. 2d at 1048 (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 91-1-15(3)(c)). “The requisite standard
of clear and convincing evidence reflects the high degree of confidence society demands
in adjudications of paternity. The standard serves the interests of legitimate heirs,
and of society as a whole, in averting fraudulent claims.” Id. (internal citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). The evidence presented
must be of sufficient quantity and quality and provide a substantial basis for the
trier of fact to conclude that clear and convincing evidence establishes paternity.
See Estate of Kendrick v. Gorden, 46 So. 3d 386, 390 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Estate of Robinson v. Gusta, 540 So. 2d 30, 33 (Miss. 1989)).
Proving or disproving paternity “is a matter of fact, and . . . [a]ny evidence tending
to support or deny the fact may be considered.” Perkins, 609 So. 2d at 394. Mississippi courts “accept that blood tests can produce a high
level of discrimination either excluding or including a given male as the father of
a particular child.” Id. “Genetic test results are admissible as evidence of paternity, but are not necessarily
conclusive.” Grubbs, 753 So. 2d at 1052 (citing Chisolm v. Eakes, 573 So. 2d 764, 767 (Miss. 1990)). The fact finder “may consider the expert testimony
[regarding the results of genetic testing] for what it feels the testimony is worth,
and may even discard it entirely. Where non-genetic evidence is conflicting, the fact
finder must engage in a determination of credibility.” Grubbs, 753 So. 2d at 1052 (citing Chisolm, at 767, 768). “[A]bsent some statutory pronouncement, paternity test results, even
those showing a high probability of paternity, cannot be conclusive as a matter of
law.” Chisolm, 573 So. 2d at 769. Because “the courts do not recognize blood tests as infallible
nor do they accept blood tests as conclusive proof of paternity,” an individual claiming
paternity must “produce other evidence to establish his claim of paternity.” Groves v. Slaton, 733 So. 2d 349, 352 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Chisolm, 573 So. 2d at 767).
Here, the evidence indicated that the DNA testing showed a 99.99% probability that
Claimant is related to NH’s father as a second-degree relative. However, NH had a
brother, G2~. The DNA evidence did not rule out G2~ as Claimant’s father. Moreover,
Claimant’s mother did not provide a statement indicating that NH’s brother, G2~, was
not Claimant’s father. Other evidence provided revealed Claimant’s mother reported
she no longer lived with J2~ at the time of NH’s death. She stated she was separated
from J2~ and lived with NH prior to NH’s death. However, Claimant’s mother did not
provide any other evidence to support her claim. Although Claimant’s mother did not
provide additional evidence, the state court noted the testimony of Claimant’s mother
and NH’s family members, including G2~, stating Claimant was the child of NH. The
court ordered and adjudged that that Claimant is NH’s legitimate and legal child and
shall inherit from NH under the statutes of descent and distribution of the State
of Mississippi. The order did not contain a detailed legal analysis of how Claimant,
as an illegitimate child, could inherit from NH based upon clear and convincing evidence.
Nevertheless, the court reached that conclusion and legitimized Claimant as the child
of NH. Based on the evidence provided, an adjudicator could conclude Claimant is NH’s
child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act.
You also asked whether the first month of entitlement to benefits would be August
2015, the month the court issued the Order of Filiation. “An act/event conferring
inheritance rights generally has effect only from the date of such act/event.” Program
Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 00306.055.A.3. If one piece of evidence satisfies the applicable standard of proof, the effective
date is the date of that piece of evidence. See id. If an adjudicator needs more than one piece of evidence to satisfy the applicable
standard of proof, the effective date is the date of the latest necessary piece of
evidence. See id.
Here, establishing NH’s paternity under Mississippi Code Annotated § 91-1-15(3)(c)
would confer inheritance rights on Claimant by finding that Claimant is NH’s legitimate
child. The court’s order indicates it relied on more than one piece of evidence in
reaching its decision, namely the DNA tests and the acknowledgement of Claimant’s
mother and all of NH’s survivors that Claimant is NH’s biological child. The DNA tests
were reviewed and sworn in September 2014, whereas the other evidence is not dated.
In the absence of any other dates, the court Order of Filiation conferring inheritance
rights represents the effective date. Thus, Claimant’s status as NH’s child could
not be effective before August 2015. See POMS GN 00306.055.A.3.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence provided, we believe a Mississippi court would conclude the
presumption of paternity is rebutted. We also believe that an adjudicator could determine
that there is clear and convincing evidence establishes that Claimant is NH’s child
for purposes of Mississippi intestacy law. Therefore, an adjudicator could find that
Claimant is NH’s child for the purposes of determining Claimant’s eligibility for
CIB on NH’s earnings record. The effective month of the relationship between Claimant
and NH is August 2015, the date of the court order.
Mary Ann Sloan
Regional Chief Counsel
By: Jennifer L. Patel
Assistant Regional Counsel