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.

In a case in which the number holder died while domiciled in Connecticut, a DNA report showing a 99.999% probability that the deceased is the claimant's father combined with statements from the deceased mother admitting to the parentage would be sufficient to establish a parent-child relationship under that State's laws.

Additionally, since Connecticut law legitimates the child when paternity is established through adjudication, the parent-child relationship is retroactive to birth.

This Memorandum is in response to your request for an opinion concerning whether Breanna M. B~ can establish that she is entitled to Child's Insurance Benefits ("CIB") on the account of Arnoldo . Specifically, you asked whether a DNA test report is sufficient evidence to establish a parent-child relationship under Connecticut law. Assuming a relationship is established, you further asked for the effective date of that relationship for paying benefits. For the reasons stated below, we believe there is sufficient evidence to establish a parent-child relationship and that the child is entitled to benefits beginning in the month of her application.

Factual Background

The number holder, Arnoldo , died on February 11, 2007. At the time of his death, he was domiciled in the state of Connecticut. On January 23, 2007, the child claimant, Breanna M. B~, was born in Derby, Connecticut. The child's birth certificate does not identify a father. On February 21, 2007, Stacey B~, the child claimant's mother, filed an application for CIB on behalf of Breanna as the child of the number holder Arnoldo .

In a written statement, the child claimant's mother indicated that she met the number holder in January 2006, and started dating him about two to three weeks later. She stated that she lived with the number holder between April and July 2006. In a child relationship statement, the mother acknowledged that the number holder was never decreed by a court to be the child's parent, was never ordered by a court to contribute to the child's support, but did admit orally that he was the parent of the child. According to the file, the number holder was married at all relevant times to another woman, Sonia C~, and had at least one biological child, Nayomara. However, the number holder was not living with Sonia and Nayomara at the time of his death.

In support of her application, the child claimant's mother submitted a DNA test report which showed that the probability of the number holder being the child's father was 99.999%. The test was reported on April 5, 2007 by Accurate Exam Services Chromosomal Laboratories which is a company accredited by the American Association of Blood Banks. As further support for her application, the mother also submitted two letters from the number holder's mother. In the first letter, dated February 28, 2007, the number holder's mother stated that the number holder told her that he was with Stacey B~, the child's mother, for two months, but that he wanted a DNA test because he had been told that Stacey was with someone else before him. In the second letter, dated April 16, 2007, the number holder's mother noted the DNA results and welcomed the child claimant into her family stating that she could see a resemblance between the child claimant and the number holder.

Analysis

The Social Security Act ("the Act") provides for the payment of insurance benefits to a child of a number holder who dies when fully or currently insured if the child has filed an application for CIB, is unmarried, under the age of 18, and was dependent upon the number holder at the time of death. 42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. 404.350 (2007); Programs Operations Manual System (POMS) RS 00203.001. Where, as here, a claimant's mother and putative father never married, the child claimant's status as the surviving child of the number holder is governed by either section 216(h)(3)(C) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416 (h)(3)(C), or section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A). Under section 216(h)(3)(C) of the Act, the claimant can be deemed to be the deceased number holder's child upon proof that, prior to the number holder's death, one of the following conditions was met: (1) that the number holder acknowledged in writing that the claimant is his child; (2) that a court decreed the number holder to be the father of the child; (3) that the court ordered the number holder to contribute to the support of the child; or (4) that the number holder is the father and was living with or contributing to the child's support at the time of his death. In this case, we are aware of no evidence which satisfies any of the required conditions in section 216(h)(3)(C) of the Act.

To establish her status as the surviving child of the deceased number holder under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, the child must show that she would be entitled to a child's share of the number holder's intestate personal property under the law of the state in which the insured individual was domiciled at the time of his death. See 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.355(b)(4); POMS GN 00306.001.C. According to the record, the number holder was a resident of Connecticut at the time of his death, and there is no evidence suggesting that the number holder's domicile was other than Connecticut. We conclude that the number holder was domiciled in Connecticut at the time of his death and that Connecticut's law of intestate succession is applicable in determining the child's status as the descendant of the number holder for purposes of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.355; POMS GN 00306.001.C.1.a.

For a person born out of wedlock to establish child status, Connecticut law provides that an individual is the child of her genetic parents regardless of marital status of such parents and that the father of a child born out of wedlock shall be considered a parent if: (1) the father and mother married after the child's birth, or (2) the father has been adjudicated the father of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (3) the father has acknowledged under oath in writing that he is the father of the child, or (4) after the death of either the father or the child, paternity has been established by the Probate Court by clear and convincing evidence that the father has acknowledged in writing that he is the father of the child and has openly treated the child as his.

CONN. GEN. STAT. 45a-438(b). Under Social Security Regulations, however, a claimant is not required to obtain an adjudication of paternity, but rather, the Agency may decide paternity using the standard of proof that the state court would use as the basis for a paternity determination. 20 C.F.R. 404.355(b)(2); POMS 00306.440.B.3. Connecticut courts determine paternity based on a "fair preponderance" of the evidence. Palomba v. Gray, 543 A.2d 1331, 1334 (Conn. 1988).

With respect to DNA testing, Connecticut law provides:

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(b). Connecticut courts appear to have endorsed the use of genetic testing evidence for purposes of adjudicating paternity where the purported father is deceased. See, e.g., Brancato v. Moriscato, No. CV 030472496S, 2003 WL 1090596 at *1 (Conn. Super. Feb. 27, 2003); Lach v. Welch, Civil. No. FA 93-0063955, 1994 WL 271518 at *7 (Conn. Super. June 13, 1994).

Here, claimant submitted a DNA test report dated April 5, 2007, which was based on DNA samples taken from the child claimant, her mother, and the number holder after his death. The report states that there is a statistical probability of 99.999% that the deceased number holder is the claimant's father. Thus, the DNA testing exceeds the statutory requirement for the presumption of paternity in Connecticut. CONN. GEN. STAT. 46b-168(b). Additionally, the mother submitted evidence of sexual intercourse, namely written statements that she was involved in a dating relationship with the number holder during the relevant time. See Palumba, 543 A.2d at 1334 (Conn. 1988) (stating that such evidence need only consist of statements from the mother). While the child claimant's mother did not specifically state that she had sexual intercourse with the number holder, we presume she could provide a statement to that effect. Accordingly, we believe that results from the DNA test along with inferences from other evidence, in the absence of contradictory evidence, constitutes sufficient evidence to establish a parent-child relationship under Connecticut law.

With respect to the effective date of the parent-child relationship and retroactive benefits, an applicant for child's benefits can receive benefits for up to six months immediately before the month in which the application is filed. 20 C.F.R. 404.621(a)(2). However, no child is entitled to benefits for any period prior to satisfying all entitlement factors for child's benefits. See 202(d)(1) of the Act; 42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. 404.352(a). Child status is one of the entitlement factors. See 202(d)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 404.350(a)(1). If the child is the legitimate child of the insured individual and entitled to benefits, the period of entitlement will include the full retroactive period of the application (six months prior to the application or the child's birth, whichever occurs later). See POMS GN 00306.050 and GN 00306.085. An out-of-wedlock child generally is not entitled to retroactive benefits because the out-of-wedlock child must prove child status under state law and because benefits are prospective from the event which conferred the inheritance rights. See POMS GN 00306.055.A.3. The only exception to this is in cases where the state law granting inheritance rights to an illegitimate child makes those rights retroactive for periods before the act or event, such as when the child has been legitimated. See POMS GN 00306.050 and GN 00306.085. This exception occurs under Connecticut law.

Connecticut law legitimates the child when paternity is established through adjudication. See CONN. GEN. STAT. 45a-438(b); POMS GN 00306.440. In discussing children born out-of-wedlock, Connecticut law states that an "individual is the child of his genetic parents, regardless of marital status of such parents." CONN. GEN. STAT. 45a-438(b). As referenced in the notes of POMS GN 00306.440, a 1995 amendment to the Connecticut statute removed language which limited legitimization to an out-of-wedlock child whose parents later intermarry. Therefore, we conclude that under Connecticut law the child claimant would be considered a legitimate child of the number holder making her eligible for benefits from the date of her birth on January 23, 2007, even though the actual DNA testing did not occur until April 5, 2007. See POMS 00306.085. The child claimant cannot collect benefits from the day of her birth, however, because the number holder did not die until the following month. Thus, even though the child-parent relationship was established at birth, the child claimant can only receive benefits from the time of the number holder's death which was on February 11, 2007. See 20 C.F.R. 404.350; 404.352. Since the child claimant's application was filed in the same month that the number holder died, she is entitled to benefits as of February 2007, and can receive no applicable retroactive benefits.

CONCLUSION

We believe that the Connecticut courts would find that the child claimant could inherit from the deceased number holder as his child under Connecticut intestacy statute. Therefore, we believe that the child qualifies as the number holder's child for purposes of entitlement to CIB. Entitlement would begin from February 2007, the month of the child claimant's application and the number holder's death, with no applicable retroactive benefits.

Connecticut law provides that for purposes of intestate succession an individual is the child of her genetic parents regardless of the marital status of such parents.

In a case where the claimant was born of a marriage but later DNA testing rebutted the presumption of legitimacy by the clear, convincing and satisfying standard, that same DNA testing, showing a 99.93 percent probability that the number holder is the actual father may be used to establish a parent-child relationship.

This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning whether a DNA test report is sufficient evidence to establish a parent-child relationship for purposes of determining the child's eligibility for Child's Insurance Benefits (CIB). For the reasons set forth below, we believe that the DNA evidence is sufficient to establish a parent-child relationship.

Factual Background

The child claimant, Rita Georgette D~, was born on April 29, 1993. At the time of her birth, her mother, Diane M~, was married to James R~, and Mr. R~ is stated to be Rita's father on her birth certificate. However, Ms. M~ states that she and Mr. R~ were separated from the summer of 1991 to late 1993, during the time Rita was conceived and born, and states that they did not have a relationship as husband and wife during that time. Her statements are corroborated by written statements from Mr. R~, who denies paternity and states that Ms. M~ had a relationship with the number holder, George P~, and that Rita is Mr. P~'s child. Further, DNA testing evidence completed in 1995 shows a 99.93 probability that the number holder, George P~, is Rita's father. Ms. M~ and Mr. R~ were divorced on May 13, 2002. The divorce judgment states that Rita is a child born after the marriage but that she is not a child of Mr. R~. Mr. P~ died on June 18, 2006, while domiciled in Connecticut.

Analysis

The Social Security Act ("the Act") provides for the payment of CIB to a child of a number holder who dies when fully or currently insured if the child has filed an application for CIB and was unmarried and under age 18 (or age 19 if a full-time student) at the time the application was filed and was dependent upon the number holder at the time of death. 42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. 404.350 (2006); POMS RS 00203.001.A.1. The Act provides that in determining whether a claimant is the child of an insured individual, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") shall apply such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property by the courts of the state where the insured individual is domiciled at the time of application or death. 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.355(b)(4); POMS GN 00306.001.C.2.a.

According to the record, the number holder was a resident of Connecticut at the time of his death. Therefore, we apply Connecticut's law of intestate succession in determining whether the claimant is the number holder's child for purposes of determining CIB eligibility. See 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.355; POMS GN 00306.001.C.1.a.

Under Connecticut's intestacy statute, after any distribution of a decedent's estate to a surviving spouse, the residue of the estate is distributed to the decedent's children. CONN. GEN. STAT. 45a-438(a). Connecticut law provides that a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the legitimate child of her mother and her mother's husband. Weidenbacher v.Dulcos, 661 A.2d 988, 997 (Conn. 1995). However, this presumption may be rebutted by clear, convincing and satisfying evidence that the mother's husband is not the child's father. Id. Connecticut law also provides that for purposes of intestate succession an individual is the child of her genetic parents regardless of the marital status of such parents CONN. GEN. STAT. 45a-438(b). Under Agency Regulations a claimant is not required to obtain an adjudication of paternity, but rather, the Agency may decide paternity using the standard of proof that the state court would use as the basis for a paternity determination. 20 C.F.R. 404.355(b)(2); POMS GN 00306.440.B.3.

Connecticut courts determine paternity based on a preponderance of the evidence. Palomba v. Gray, 543 A.2d 1331, 1334 (Conn. 1988). With respect to DNA test results, Connecticut law provides as follows:

[T]he 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(b). Connecticut courts appear to have endorsed the use of genetic testing evidence for purposes of adjudicating paternity where the purported father is deceased. See, e.g., Brancato v. Moriscato, No. CV 030472496S, 2003 WL 1090596 at *1 (Conn. Super. Feb. 27, 2003); Lach v. Welch, Civil No. FA 93-0063955, 1994 WL 271518 at *7 (Conn. Super. June 13, 1994).

Here, the claimant submitted a DNA test report dated July 27, 1995, which was based on DNA samples taken from the child claimant, her mother and the number holder prior to his death. The report states that there is a statistical probability of 99.93 percent that the deceased number holder is the claimant's father. The claimant has also submitted evidence of sexual intercourse between the mother and putative father, namely, the statements of Ms. M~ and Mr. R~. See Palomba, 543 A.2d at 1334 (Conn. 1988) (such evidence need only consist of statements from the mother). Under Connecticut law, this DNA test report and other evidence appears to constitute clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that James R~ is the child's father. Guin v. Green, No. 980352681, 1999 WL 259661 at * 1 (Conn. Super. Apr. 13, 1999). Moreover, this evidence constitutes a rebuttable presumption that the number holder, George P~, is the child's father. CONN. GEN. STAT. 46b-168(b); POMS GN 00306.440.D. Accordingly, we believe the DNA test report and other evidence submitted in this claim is sufficient to establish a parent-child relationship between the child and the number holder under Connecticut law.

CONCLUSION

We believe that the Connecticut courts would find that Rita could inherit from the deceased number holder as his child under Connecticut's intestacy statute. Therefore, we believe that Rita qualifies as the number holder's child for purposes of entitlement to CIB.

In Connecticut, DNA testing showing a 99.9999 percent probability that the deceased number holder is the father of the claimant combined with evidence that sexual intercourse occurred between the mother and the number holder during the period of time in which the child was conceived constitutes a rebuttable presumption of paternity.

The mother's statement is sufficient evidence of the sexual relationship.

This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning whether a DNA Percentage Test Report issued after the number holder's death is sufficient evidence to establish a parent-child relationship for purposes of determining the child's eligibility for Child's Insurance Benefits (CIB). For the reasons set forth below, we believe that the DNA evidence is sufficient to establish a parent-child relationship.

Factual Background

The number holder, Michael J~, died on April 30, 1992, while domiciled in Connecticut. The child claimant, Mikequyia J. J~, was born approximately nine months later, on January 25, 1993. Mikequyia's birth certificate does not indicate the name of her father. The number holder and Mikequyia's mother, Jonna D~, were never married. On May 22, 2006, Mikequyia's mother filed a fourth application for CIB on Mikequyia's behalf based on the number holder's account. We had previously advised that Mikequyia had failed to establish that she was the number holder's child based on the evidence presented at that time. See POMS PR 01115.008. Since that opinion, however, the claimant has submitted new evidence consisting of a DNA Percentage Test Report dated May 16, 2006.

Analysis

The Social Security Act ("the Act") provides for the payment of CIB to a child of a number holder who dies when fully or currently insured if the child has filed an application for CIB and was unmarried and under age 18 (or age 19 if a full-time student) at the time the application was filed and was dependent upon the number holder at the time of death. 42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. 404.350 (2006); POMS RS 00203.001.A.1. The Act provides that in determining whether a claimant is the child of an insured individual, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") shall apply such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property by the courts of the state where the insured individual is domiciled at the time of application or death. 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.355(b)(4); POMS GN 00306.001.C.2.a.

According to the record, the number holder was a resident of Connecticut at the time of his death. Therefore, we apply Connecticut's law of intestate succession in determining whether the claimant is the number holder's child for purposes of determining CIB eligibility. See 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. 404.355; POMS GN 00306.001.C.1.a.

Under Connecticut's intestacy statute, after any distribution of a decedent's estate to a surviving spouse, the residue of the estate is distributed to the decedent's children. CONN. GEN. STAT. 45a-438(a). Connecticut law provides that for purposes of intestate succession an individual is the child of her genetic parents regardless of the marital status of such parents and that the father of a child born out of wedlock shall be considered a parent if (1) the father and mother have married after the child's birth, or (2) the father has been adjudicated the father of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (3) the father has acknowledged under oath in writing that he is the father of the child, or (4) after the death of either the father or the child, paternity has been established by the Probate Court by clear and convincing evidence that the father has acknowledged in writing that he is the father of the child and has openly treated the child as his.

CONN. GEN. STAT. 45a-438(b). Under Agency Regulations a claimant is not required to obtain an adjudication of paternity, but rather, the Agency may decide paternity using the standard of proof that the state court would use as the basis for a paternity determination. 20 C.F.R. 404.355(b)(2); POMS GN 00306.440.B.3.

With respect to DNA test results, Connecticut law provides as follows:

[T]he 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 [sic] 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(b). While the claimant has submitted DNA evidence, the other information provided to us does not indicate whether there is evidence of sexual intercourse between the mother and putative father, as required under the statute. However, we presume the mother would provide statements to that effect, which would constitute sufficient evidence. Palomba v. Gray, 543 A.2d 1331, 1334 (Conn. 1988). Furthermore, the POMS only requires the DNA evidence to establish paternity in Connecticut. See POMS GN 00306.440.D ("Genetic testing with a statistical probability of 99.0% or greater creates a rebuttable presumption of paternity").

Here, the claimant submitted a DNA Percentage Test Report dated May 16, 2006, which was based on DNA samples taken from the claimant, her mother and the deceased number holder. The Report states that there is a statistical probability of 99.9999 percent that the deceased number holder was the claimant's father. Accordingly, this evidence constitutes a rebuttable presumption of paternity in Connecticut. CONN. GEN. STAT. 46b-168(b). We could find no authority in Connecticut law as to who could rebut such a presumption or what evidence would be satisfactory to rebut the presumption. However, given the strong statistical probability of paternity in this instance, plus the lack of any evidence that paternity is contested by any interested party, we believe that the presumption could not reasonably be rebutted under Connecticut law. See Weidenbacker v. Duclos, 661 A.2d 988, 998 (Conn. 1995) ("modern scientific tests can determine, with near perfect accuracy, who is the true biological father of a child."); Lach v. Welch, Civil No. FA 93-0063955, 1994 WL 271518 at *6 (Conn. Super. June 13, 1994). ("a court faced with the question of paternity is no longer dependent upon fallible testimony: through ... advancements in genetic testing, science has virtually eliminated the 'proof problem' by developing an effective means to prove the identity of an illegitimate child's father in the absence of the father."). Accordingly, we believe the DNA Percentage Test Report submitted as evidence in this claim is sufficient to establish a parent-child relationship under Connecticut law.

Conclusion

We believe that the Connecticut courts would find that Mikequyia could inherit from the deceased number holder as his child under Connecticut's intestacy statute. Therefore, we believe that Mikequyia qualifies as the number holder's child for purposes of entitlement to CIB.