Connecticut courts have considered DNA testing of paternal relatives to establish a decedent's paternity.

The Connecticut Parentage Act sets forth certain reliability and authenticity requirements for genetic testing to be admissible in court to prove paternity. Genetic testing must be the type reasonably relied on by experts in genetic testing and must be performed in an accredited testing laboratory. The report of genetic testing must be in a record and signed under penalty of perjury by a designee of the testing laboratory. The report of genetic testing shall be admissible without testimony if chain of custody documentation is provided showing: the name and photograph of each person whose specimen has been taken; the name of the person who collected each specimen; the place and date each specimen was collected; the name of the person who received each specimen in the testing laboratory; and the date each specimen was received. A person is identified as the genetic parent of a child if genetic testing complies with these statutory provisions and the testing results show that the person has not less than a 99% probability of parentage.

Because the Claimant’s Mother has not provided supportive chain of custody documentation from the laboratories, it is likely that Connecticut courts would find the results inadmissible to establish the number holder's paternity under Connecticut law.

QUESTION PRESENTED

In considering his application for Title II child’s insurance benefits on the record of deceased number holder (NH) W~, you asked whether L~ (Claimant) is the NH’s “child” under the Social Security Act (Act). The NH died on April 1XX, 2024, domiciled in Windsor, Connecticut. The Claimant was born on March XX, 2020, in Connecticut to Y~ (Mother). The Claimant’s birth certificate identifies only one parent, his Mother. The NH and the Mother were not married. The NH was married to another woman (Y1~) from 2008 until his death in 2024. The NH had two children with his spouse. As evidence of the parent-child relationship, the Claimant’s Mother provided the results of sibling DNA testing of the Claimant and her child A~ (Alleged Sibling) performed in February 2026 showing 99.94% probability of full siblingship, along with evidence showing that the NH is the Alleged Sibling’s father. However, the sibling DNA test report does not include any chain of custody documentation, and it is unclear whether this was an at-home DNA test.

ANSWER

We believe there is insufficient evidence for the agency to find the Claimant to be the NH’s “child” under the Act for Title II benefits under section 216(h)(2)(A) and Connecticut law. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A). Because the Claimant’s mother has provided only the two-page DNA report showing the sibling DNA testing results and no supportive chain of custody documentation from the laboratories, it is likely that Connecticut courts would find the results inadmissible to establish the NH’s paternity under Connecticut law. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 46b-498, 46b-499. Although the Claimant was four years old when the NH died, the Mother has provided no other evidence to establish the NH’s paternity. Therefore, Connecticut courts would likely find that the Claimant has not proven the right to inherit from the NH as his child under Connecticut intestate succession law. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 45a-437, 45a-438, 46b-471, 46b-495 – 46b-508. Thus, there is legal support for the agency to determine that the Claimant is not the NH’s “child” for child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.350(a)(1), 404.355(a)(1).

To resolve the deficiency with the sibling DNA testing evidence, the Claimant’s Mother would need to provide the agency with the laboratories’ chain of custody documentation supporting the test results or other evidence to establish the NH’s paternity. Alternatively, the Claimant’s Mother could complete the Form SSA-2519 and provide additional evidence identified in this form so that the agency could determine if there is a basis for finding a parent-child relationship under section 216(h)(3) of the Act. See POMS GN 00306.002A (“[D]evelop the child’s relationship under any category in the chart in GN 00306.002F that will facilitate entitlement. If you cannot entitle the child under one category, check to see if there might be entitlement under another category.”), GN 00306.300A (“Form SSA-2519 prompts for possible sources of information that may support a finding that a child is the child of a number holder (NH)…”), GN 00306.315A (“Before disallowing a child’s claim based on failure to establish relationship, explore all possible relationship provisions, consecutively or concurrently.”), GN 00306.315B (“Before disallowing a claim for not meeting the relationship requirement…assist the claimant (as needed) to complete the SSA-2519 (see GN 00306.300), and follow up on information listed on the SSA-2519 that may have a bearing on the child’s entitlement.”).

BACKGROUND

The NH died on April XX, 2024, domiciled in Windsor, Connecticut. The Mother filed an application for child’s insurance benefits on behalf of the Claimant alleging that the NH is the Claimant’s father.

A Connecticut birth certificate shows that the Claimant was born on March XX, 2020. The birth certificate lists the Mother as the child’s mother and does not identify a father. There is no evidence addressing the Claimant’s relationship with the NH over the four years after the Claimant’s birth in 2020 and prior to the NH’s death in 2024. The Mother provided a DNA Diagnostics Center “DNA Relationship Test Report Sibling Evaluation” showing the results of DNA testing of the Claimant, the Mother, and the Alleged Sibling. The report found a 99.94% probability of full siblingship and a likelihood that they have the same biological father of 1,697 to 1. Their specimen was collected February XX, 2026 and received for testing on February XX, 2026. DNA Diagnostics Center is accredited by AABB. The testing report was signed by the laboratory director on February XX, 2026, who verified that the interpretation of the results was correct. There was no chain of custody documentation to support the collection and testing of the specimen.

The Mother also provided evidence that the Alleged Sibling, who was born to the Mother in June 2016, is the NH’s child, including paternity testing of the Alleged Sibling and the NH from May 2017 showing a 99.99% probability of paternity (DNA testing results and chain of custody documentation), the Alleged Sibling’s birth certificate listing the NH and the Mother as her parents, and a letter from the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office to the Mother in June 2017 enclosing the paternity testing results and stating that the results indicated that the NH was the father of the Alleged Sibling.

We located the NH’s online obituary, which states that he lived in Connecticut at the time of his death with his wife Y1~ (whom he married in 2008) and their two daughters. There is no mention of the Claimant, the Alleged Sibling, or the Mother in the obituary.

It is our understanding that the Alleged Sibling and the NH’s two children with his surviving spouse are all entitled to child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Law: Status as a NH's Child for Entitlement to Child's Insurance Benefits

Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to child’s insurance benefits on a deceased insured individual’s account if, among other things, the claimant is the individual’s child. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(1), 404.354. The Act and regulations define “child” as an insured individual’s natural child, legally adopted child, stepchild, grandchild, step-grandchild, or equitably adopted child. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(e); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.354 – 404.359. Our focus is on whether the Claimant is the NH’s natural child, as there is no evidence that the other terms would apply here.

The claimant has the burden of providing evidence to establish entitlement to benefits as the NH’s child. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.703, 404.704, 404.705, 404.730, 404.731.

1. Natural child under section 216(h)(2)(A) and state intestate succession laws

To determine whether a claimant is the natural child of the insured individual under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, the agency applies “such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property . . . by the courts of the State in which [the insured] was domiciled at the time of his death.” 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(1), (b)(1). The agency applies the version of state law in effect when the final decision on the application for benefits is made unless a more favorable version existed either when the insured died or during the time commencing with the claimant’s first month of benefits eligibility and ending with the agency’s final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(b)(4). Because NH was domiciled in Connecticut at the time of his death, Connecticut intestate succession laws apply.^[1] We consider Connecticut law below.

2. Natural child under section 216(h)(3)

Alternately, the agency may deem a claimant to be an individual’s natural child under section 216(h)(2)(B) and (h)(3) of the Act if the claimant is the individual’s biological child and certain criteria are met. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(B), (h)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(2)-(4); POMS GN 00306.001O.2, GN 00306.002B, GN 00306.100, GN 00306.105, GN 00306.110, GN 00306.125. We do not have any information on whether the Claimant’s mother was asked to complete the Form SSA-2519 Child Relationship Statement, which provides evidence relevant to status as a child under section 216(h)(3). See POMS GN 00306.300. We are unaware of any evidence of a written acknowledgment of the child by the NH, a court order of paternity or child support entered during the NH’s lifetime, or other evidence of the NH’s living with or supporting the child that might establish the Claimant’s status as the NH’s child under section 216(h)(3).

B. State Law: The Right to Inherit as a Decedent’s Child under Connecticut Intestate Succession Law

1. A Child’s Right to Intestate Inheritance from a Deceased Father

Under Connecticut intestate succession law, a decedent’s property passes to his surviving spouse and surviving issue, which includes children who qualify for inheritance under section 45a-438. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 45a-437, 45a-438; see also Ramos v. Cox, No. FA-000630917, 2002 WL 31894798, at *2-3, 10-11 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2002) (noting that the child has “a fundamental library interest” in the parent, as the establishment of the parent-child relationship is associated with substantial rights and interests, including the right to inheritance and future rights to social security benefits).

A child shall qualify for intestate inheritance from the parent “if parentage is established in accordance with the provisions of the Connecticut Parentage Act or by adoption.” Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 45a-438(b); see also Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 46b-450 – 46b-559 (Connecticut Parentage Act, effective Jan. 1, 2022, to present), § 46b-454(a)(2) (“petitions to determine parentage after the death of the child or the person whose parentage is to be determined shall be filed in the Probate Court….”), § 46b-571(h) (“after the death of the alleged genetic parent of a child born to an unmarried birth parent, a party deemed by the Probate Court to have sufficient interest may file a claim for parentage on behalf of such alleged genetic parent with the Probate Court….”); In re Murrell, --- A.3d ----, 2026 WL 1945003, at *5 (Conn. App. Ct. July 7, 2026) (“When a person dies intestate, probate courts are… required to determine who constitute the decedent’s heirs at law….”).

2. Establishing Parentage under the Connecticut Parentage Act with Genetic Testing

Under the Connecticut Parentage Act, a parent-child relationship is established between a person and a child if:

• •

  The person gives birth to the child (except for cases involving surrogacy agreements);

• •

  There is a presumption of the person’s parentage (including marital presumption);

• •

  The person is adjudicated by a court to be the child’s parent based on a de facto parentage claim or based on genetic testing;

• •

  Parentage is established as an intended parent under a surrogacy agreement or assisted reproduction;

• •

  The person adopts the child; or

• •

  The person acknowledges the child by signing an acknowledgment of parentage.

See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-471. The Claimant has not provided evidence to satisfy any of these criteria to establish a parent-child relationship with the NH.

However, with regard to a court adjudication, the Social Security regulations do not require an applicant to obtain a State court judgment to establish parentage. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(b)(2). Instead, the agency “decide[s a child’s] paternity by using the standard of proof that the State court would use as the basis for a determination of paternity.” Id. Thus, the Claimant must establish a parent-child relationship with the NH that would permit the right to inherit under Connecticut intestate succession law under the standard of proof a Connecticut court would use to determine paternity.

Older cases considering this issue indicate that Connecticut courts determine paternity based on a “fair preponderance” of the evidence. See Palomba v. Gray, 543 A.2d 1331, 1334-1337 (Conn. 1988) (finding that the following evidence amounted to a prime facie case of paternity that the alleged father failed to disprove: the alleged father’s admission that he sexual relations with the child’s mother within the period of conception, the child’s mother’s consistent allegation he was the child’s father and testimony that she and the alleged father had sexual relations during the time of conception, and witness testimony that of the relationship between the alleged father and child’s mother). A “fair preponderance of the evidence” means “the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing in your mind.” Ewing v. Chase, No. FA-030069573S, 2004 WL 2668277, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 28, 2004) (citations omitted).

As relevant here, under the Connecticut Parentage Act, a parent-child relationship is established between a person and a child if the person is adjudicated a parent of the child under sections 46b-495 to 46b-505, which are the statutory provisions on genetic testing. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-471(5). Even prior to adopting the Connecticut Parentage Act, Connecticut statutes provided for genetic testing to determine paternity, and courts have long endorsed the use of genetic testing evidence for purposes of adjudicating paternity where the alleged father is deceased.^[2] See, e.g., Brancato v. Moriscato, No. CV-030472496C, 2003 WL 1090596, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 2003) (granting the motion to exhume the alleged father’s body for DNA testing to determine if the applicant is the deceased alleged father’s heir for intestate succession purposes); Lach v. Welch, No. FA93-0063955, 1994 WL 271518, at *7 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 13, 1994) (reviewing the history of DNA testing and amendments to Connecticut statutes on genetic testing and finding that the plaintiff must be allowed to pursue DNA testing to determine if the decedent was the father of the plaintiff’s child for purposes of administration of his estate). As the Connecticut Supreme Court noted, “modern scientific tests can determine, with nearly perfect accuracy, who is the true biological father of a child.” Weidenbacher v. Duclos, 661 A.2d 988, 998 (Conn. 1995); see also Ramos v. Cox, 2002 WL 31894798, at *15 (noting that Connecticut “courts have expressed concern with accuracy of any paternity determination taken without genetic tests”).

Furthermore, although the Connecticut Parentage Act provisions on genetic testing do not expressly address DNA testing of a deceased man’s relatives to prove paternity, as some States’ laws do, Connecticut courts have found that when the alleged father is unavailable, DNA testing of the alleged father’s relatives may also be used to establish a probability of paternity. See Lach v. Welch, No. FA-930063955, 1997 WL 536330, at *5-7 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 15, 1997) (noting that testing of relatives was found to be scientifically reliable and other State Supreme Courts have recognized the reliability of DNA testing of paternal relatives for purposes of establishing paternity and ordering the DNA testing of the plaintiff, her minor child, and the alleged paternal grandparents to determine paternity of the deceased alleged father); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.508(a)(1) (allowing for genetic testing of a man’s parents, siblings, other children, and other relatives to assist in adjudicating the man’s paternity); Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 204.054 (to determine a decedent’s heir, a court may order genetic testing of a decedent’s parents, siblings, another child, or any other relative).

Genetic Testing Requirements

The Connecticut Parentage Act sets forth certain reliability and authenticity requirements for genetic testing to be admissible in court to prove paternity. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 46b-495 – 46b-508; see also Davis v. Burrill, No. MMX-FA-22-5015463-S, 2023 WL 7871333, at *6 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 2023) (“General Statutes §§ 46b-495 to 46b-505 address the court’s authority to order genetic testing in an action to adjudicate parentage, the requirements for such testing when it is ordered, the admissibility in evidence of a report of testing, and the way the court may use the results of genetic testing in a proceeding to determine whether an alleged genetic parent is in fact a parent.”). Genetic testing must be the type reasonably relied on by experts in genetic testing and must be performed in an accredited testing laboratory. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-498(a). The report of genetic testing must be in a record and signed under penalty of perjury by a designee of the testing laboratory. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-499(a). The report of genetic testing shall be admissible without testimony if chain of custody documentation is provided showing: the name and photograph of each person whose specimen has been taken; the name of the person who collected each specimen; the place and date each specimen was collected; the name of the person who received each specimen in the testing laboratory; and the date each specimen was received. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-499(b).

Genetic Testing Results

The Connecticut Parentage Act also sets forth a probability of parentage threshold. A person is identified as the genetic parent of a child if genetic testing complies with these statutory provisions and the testing results show that the person has not less than a 99% probability of parentage. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-500(a). A court shall adjudicate an alleged genetic parent to be the child’s parent if the alleged genetic parent is identified under section 46b-500 as the genetic parent of the child and the identification is not successfully challenged. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-503(a)(1).

Other Evidence

Finally, if the person is neither identified nor excluded as a genetic parent by genetic testing, the court may still determine the alleged genetic parent is the child’s parent “based on other evidence.” Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-503(a)(5).

Application of the Law to the Claim

As noted above, although not explicitly addressed in Connecticut statutes, Connecticut courts have considered and ordered DNA testing of paternal relatives to establish a decedent’s paternity. See Lach v. Welch, 1997 WL 536330, at *5-7. Thus, we believe it is likely that Connecticut courts would consider the sibling DNA testing of the Alleged Sibling (as the NH’s child, as established in the evidence provided) and the Claimant to prove the NH’s paternity as to the Claimant. Further, the sibling DNA testing results showing 99.94% probability of full siblingship between the Claimant and the Alleged Sibling meet the 99% probability statutory requirement. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-500(a). Additionally, it would appear that the sibling DNA testing is the type reasonably relied on by experts in genetic testing, and it was performed in an accredited testing laboratory, DNA Diagnostics Center. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-498(a). It is also in a record and signed by the laboratory designee, though not under penalty of perjury. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-499(a). However, we believe Connecticut courts would not consider the two-page sibling DNA testing results without the required chain of custody documentation showing the name and photograph of each person whose specimen has been taken; the name of the person who collected each specimen; the place and date each specimen was collected; the name of the person who received each specimen in the testing laboratory; and the date each specimen was received. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-499(b).

DNA Diagnostics Center’s website states that “DDC offers two different types of sibling DNA tests: legal tests and at-home tests.” https://dnacenter.com/relationship-testing/sibling/. The legal sibling DNA test “offers court-admissible results. To ensure the proper chain of custody is followed, all tested parties are required to have their DNA samples collected at a certified facility…. The sample collector is also required to verify the identities of all tested parties through either government ID or other legal documents.” See id. The website provides a sample of the “Sibling Legal DNA Test Report.” See id. The at-home sibling DNA test “does not offer court-admissible results. If you are seeking a sibling DNA test solely for peace of mind, you may want to consider an at-home test. At-home relationship testing is just as accurate; the DDC lab follows the same strict processes that legal tests require, the only difference being that sample collection occurs at home, unwitnessed.” See id. The website offers a sample of the “Sibling DNA Test Report For Personal Knowledge Only.” The sibling DNA testing provided by the Mother does not look exactly like either of these sample reports. There is no chain of custody documentation or indication in the report itself that this was a legal DNA test following strict chain-of-custody requirements. Without chain of custody documentation, it is possible that this is an at-home sibling DNA test. Thus, we believe the sibling DNA testing of the Claimant and the Alleged Sibling would be inadmissible without the chain of custody documentation establishing its reliability and authenticity.^[3] See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-499(b).

As noted, under Connecticut law, if the person is neither identified nor excluded as a genetic parent by genetic testing, the court may still determine the alleged genetic parent is the child’s parent “based on other evidence.” Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-503(a)(5). Here, however, there is no other evidence of the NH’s paternity.

Because the Claimant’s Mother has provided only the two-page DNA report showing the sibling DNA testing results and no supportive chain of custody documentation from the laboratories, it is likely that Connecticut courts would find the results inadmissible to establish the NH’s paternity under Connecticut law. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 46b-498, 46b-499. There is no other evidence offered to establish the NH’s paternity of the Claimant. Therefore, Connecticut courts would likely find that the Claimant has not proven the right to inherit from the NH as his child under Connecticut intestate succession law. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 45a-437, 45a-438, 46b-471, 46b-495 – 46b-508.

CONCLUSION

There is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant has not proven status as the NH’s “child” for purposes of entitlement to child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

Connecticut General Statutes provide that in any proceeding in which the question of paternity is at issue, the court or a family support magistrate may order deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests, to be performed by a hospital, accredited laboratory, qualified physician or other qualified person designated by the court, to determine whether or not the putative father is the father of the child. The results shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the putative father is the father of the child if the results of such tests indicate a ninety-nine per cent or greater probability that he is the father of the child, provided the petitioner has presented evidence that sexual intercourse occurred between the mother and the putative father during the period of time in which the child was conceived.

The DNA test results submitted are insufficient to establish a presumption of paternity because it was not done pursuant to a court order under conditions in which a credible chain of custody of the specimens could be established, DNA samples from the NH and the childs mother were not tested, and the identity and authentication of the DNA specimens analyzed cannot be verified. The testing company also specifically disclaims any liability for misidentification of the persons tested and further explains that the results of its home DNA test are not legally binding or admissible in court.

I. Question Presented

The number holder (NH), C~, who resided in Connecticut, died on February xx, 2014. On July XX, 2014, the female child claimant, C2~, was born in Connecticut. The childs mother is D~. The birth certificate does not identify the father. D~ has filed for benefits on behalf of her child as the child of the deceased NH. The question presented is whether a parent-child relationship exists between the child and the deceased NH for purposes of surviving childs benefits.

II. Short Answer

The child claimants mother has not established that a parent-child relationship exists between the child claimant and the deceased NH under Connecticut law.

III. Background

On May XX, 2017, we received your request for an opinion as to whether a parent-child relationship exists between the child claimant and the deceased NH.

D~ has stated that she and the NH were in a relationship and that the NH is the father of the female child claimant. There is no indication that they lived together, and no evidence that the NH acknowledged the child as his own, in writing, before his death. The NH died in February 2014, and the child was born in July 2014. Although the birth certificate does not identify the childs father, D~ named the child after the NH.^[4] D~ also submitted a home paternity test purporting to show that there is a 99.9% probability that the claimant is the half-sister of another child named E~, whose father is allegedly C~. No DNA sample from the NH was tested.

IV. Applicable Law

A. Federal Law

The Social Security Act provides for determination of family status for application purposes. 42 U.S.C. 416(h). Relevant here, the Act states:

In determining whether an applicant is the child . . . of a fully or currently insured individual for purposes of this title, the Commissioner of Social Security shall apply such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property by the courts of the State in which such insured individual . . . was domiciled at the time of his death . . . Applicants who according to such law would have the same status relative to taking intestate personal property as a child . . . shall be deemed such.

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. 404.350, 404.355.

Additionally, An applicant who is the son or daughter of a fully or currently insured individual, but who is not (and is not deemed to be) the child of such insured individual under paragraph (2), shall nevertheless be deemed to be the child of such insured individual if:

. . .

(C) in the case of a deceased individual

(i) such insured individual

(I) had acknowledged in writing that the applicant is his or her son or daughter,

(II) had been decreed by a court to be the mother or father of the applicant, or

(III) had been ordered by a court to contribute to the support of the applicant because the applicant was his or her son or daughter,

and such acknowledgment, court decree, or court order was made before the death of such insured individual, or

(ii) such insured individual is shown by evidence satisfactory to the Commissioner of Social Security to have been the mother or father of the applicant, and such insured individual was living with or contributing to the support of the applicant at the time such insured individual died.

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(C); see also 20 C.F.R. 404.350, 404.355.

Since the NH was domiciled in Connecticut at the time of his death, the agency must determine whether the Connecticut State courts would consider the child claimant to be the child of the NH for purposes of intestacy.

Section GN 00306.440 of the Program Operations Manual System (POMS) discusses Connecticut intestacy laws. Specifically, the POMS provides:

SSA will . . . find a parent-child relationship to exist after the fathers death where there is unrebutted genetic testing with the statistical probability of paternity of 99.0 percent or greater provided that the petitioner has presented evidence that sexual intercourse occur[r]ed between the mother and this individual during the period of time that the child was conceived. Where the above evidence is not present, or where evidence is presented to rebut the genetic testing evidence, SSA will determine if a parent-child relationship exists based on a preponderance of the evidence, which may include any of the evidence presented in GN 00306.440.D.

POMS GN 00306.440.B.3. Section D further provides:

Evidence considered in paternity adjudications includes genetic testing as well as testimony from the mother and alleged father. Genetic testing with a statistical probability of 99.0 percent or greater creates a rebuttable presumption of paternity provided that the petitioner has presented evidence that sexual intercourse occurred between the mother and this individual during the period of time that the ch[i]ld was conceived.

POMS GN 00306.440.D.

B. Connecticut Law

Section 46b-168 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides:

In any proceeding in which the question of paternity is at issue, the court or a family support magistrate, on motion of any party, may order genetic tests which shall mean deoxyribonucleic acid tests, to be performed by a hospital, accredited laboratory, qualified physician or other qualified person designated by the court, to determine whether or not the putative father or husband is the father of the child. The results of such tests, whether ordered under this section or required by the IV-D agency under section 46b-168a, shall be admissible in evidence to either establish definite exclusion of the putative father or husband or as evidence that he is the father of the child without the need for foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity or accuracy, unless objection is made in writing not later than twenty days prior to the hearing at which such results may be introduced in evidence.

In any proceeding in which the question of paternity is at issue, the results of such genetic tests . . . shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the putative father is the father of the child if the results of such tests indicate a ninety-nine per cent or greater probability that he is the father of the child, provided the petitioner has presented evidence that sexual intercourse occurred between the mother and the putative father during the period of time in which the child was conceived.

Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-168(a) and (b).

V. Analysis

The evidence does not show that the child claimant was the child of the deceased NH within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A). Both the POMS and CT law provide for a rebuttable presumption of paternity based on genetic testing indicating that there is a 99.0 percent or greater probability that the putative father is the father of the child, provided that there is evidence that sexual intercourse occurred between the mother and the putative father during the period in which the child was conceived. Here, D~ has presented the results of a home genetic test purporting to show that there is a 99.9% probability that the claimant is the half-sister of another child named E~, whose father is allegedly C~.

The test results that D~ has submitted are insufficient to establish a presumption of paternity, however. Although the test appears to have been done by an accredited laboratory, it was not done pursuant to a court order under conditions in which a credible chain of custody of the specimens could be established. Moreover, DNA samples from the NH and D~ were not tested. In addition, the report states that the two individuals testedthe claimant and a minor named E~were entirely responsible for the information [and DNA specimens] provided, and that the identity and authentication of the DNA specimens analyzed on this report cannot be verified. The testing company also specifically disclaims any liability for misidentification of the persons tested and further explains that the results of its home DNA test are not legally binding or admissible in court unlike a legal DNA test. For these reasons, it is unlikely that a Connecticut court would admit the results of this test to establish a presumption that the NH is the child claimants father. ^[5]

We also conclude that SSA should not find a parent-child relationship based on a preponderance of the evidence. See POMS GN 00306.440.B.3 (Where [genetic testing] evidence is not present, . . . SSA will determine if a parent-child relationship exists based on a preponderance of the evidence . . .). The agency decide[s] . . . paternity by using the standard of proof that the State court would use as the basis for a determination of paternity. 20 C.F.R. 404.355(b)(2). Prior to DNA testing, the State of Connecticut did not allow paternity suits against deceased individuals. See Hayes v. Smith, 194 Conn. 52, 63, 480 A.2d 425, 431 (1984). In Hayes, the court explained, Because the question of paternity is one of fact and not of law[,] the decedents continued availability would be a substantial factor in contributing to the reliability of the factfinding process on this question. Hayes, 194 Conn. at 64, 480 A.2d at 432. More recently, however, the Connecticut Superior Court allowed a paternity suit against a deceased individual because the proof problem identified by the court in Hayes has been ameliorated [by the scientific techniques available to determine paternity]. Lach v. Welch, No. FA 93-0063955, 1994 WL 271518, at *3, 7 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 13, 1994). In other words, for Connecticut courts, genetic testing is crucial evidence in paternity determinations where the alleged father is deceased.

In this case, D~ presented three letters, two signed and one unsigned, from individuals who stated that the NH had acknowledged that he was the father of the child claimant. In one letter, a nurse from DK~ Healthcare stated that the NH had accompanied the mother during an ultrasound appointment. As stated above, D~ also presented the purported results from a home-administered DNA test. Considered together, we do not believe these materials rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence under Connecticut law. In 2000, the Connecticut Superior Court essentially rejected a defendants unconventional DNA test, explaining that [w]ithout proper foundation and supporting evidence, this court cannot accord more than minimal weight to the test results [from a DNA test that was not court-ordered]. White v. Cordier, No. FA 940616380, 2000 WL 773006, at *2-3 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 1, 2000). And in Brancato v. Moriscato, No. CV 030472496S, 2003 WL 1090596 at *1 (Conn. Super. Feb. 27, 2003), the Connecticut Superior Court ordered the exhumation of the deceased putative father for paternity testing purposes. Based on these cases, we believe a Connecticut court would likely not rely on the letters to establish paternity and would require court-ordered testing to establish paternity where the putative father is deceased and thus unable to testify on his own behalf or challenge the evidence presented by the mother.

The evidence also establishes that the child claimant was not the child of the deceased NH within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(C). The deceased NH did not acknowledge the child as his own in writing before his death. The deceased NH had not been decreed by a court to be the father of the child claimant or been ordered by a court to contribute to the childs support before his death. And the NH was not living with or contributing to the support of the child claimant at the time of his death, as the child had not yet been born.

VI. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we believe that a Connecticut State court would not extend rights of inheritance to the child claimant based on the evidence submitted to date in this case, and, thus, that the child claimants mother has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that a parent-child relationship exists between the child claimant and the deceased NH.

Michael J. Pelgro

Regional Chief Counsel

By: Molly Carter

Assistant Regional Counsel