QUESTION PRESENTED
This memorandum is in response to your request for an opinion regarding the type
of parent-child relationship that exists between the number holder, Jerry (NH), and
his adult adopted daughter, Destiny, in order to determine whether Destiny is entitled
to benefits on the NH’s account.
ANSWER
In our opinion, the NH’s adoption of Destiny was valid because it met the Oklahoma
adult adoption statute requirements. Thus, Destiny would be eligible for benefits
on the NH’s account as a legally adopted child.
BACKGROUND
According to the information that you have provided, the NH was born on February. The
agency’s records show that the NH married Nancy on July 20, 1971. The Final Decree
of Adoption states that the NH married Nancy on July 20, 1970. The year discrepancy
does not affect our analysis in this case. The NH began receiving Title II retirement
benefits based on a March 1996 date of entitlement. The NH lives in the City of Agra,
Lincoln County, Oklahoma.
Destiny was born on June, is presently twenty-nine years old, and has never been married. Destiny
started receiving Title XVI payments in November 1988, based on disability due to
intellectual, autistic, and other pervasive developmental disorders. In May 2013,
Destiny protectively filed an application for Title II disabled adult child’s benefits
on the NH’s account.
The NH and Nancy jointly filed a petition to adopt Destiny in the district court of
Lincoln County, Oklahoma (Lincoln District Court). The Final Decree of Adoption states
that the NH and Nancy filed the petition for adoption. We do not have a copy of the
petition for adoption and do not have access to records that the Lincoln District
Court considered to grant the Final Decree of Adoption. Under Oklahoma law, all records
in adoption proceedings are confidential and are not open for inspection. Okla. Stat.
Ann. tit. 10, § 7505-1.1; see also Program Operations Manual System (POMS) General (GN) 00306.155 (agency policy is
that we do not solicit a copy of the adoption decree, and we may use the decree to
establish the date of adoption only if the parents have possession of the decree and
voluntarily submit it). Prior to issuing a Final Decree of Adoption, the Lincoln District
Court found that the parties had filed all required documents. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7505-6.2 (filings required prior to final hearing). Thus,
we rely on the information in the Final Decree of Adoption to support the Lincoln
District Court’s findings that the parties filed all the required documents prior
to the issuance of the Final Decree of Adoption.
Nancy consented to the adoption and joined the petition for adoption. Destiny is an
incapacitated adult, and Terri, Destiny’s biological mother and guardian, consented
to the adoption on Destiny’s behalf. After conducting a hearing, the Lincoln District
Court granted the petition for adoption and issued a Final Decree of Adoption on May
15, 2013.
DISCUSSION
The Social Security Act (Act) provides that a number holder’s adopted child may be
eligible for benefits on the number holder’s account if the number holder legally
adopted the child. 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(d), 416(e); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.350(a)(1), 404.354, 404.356. In determining whether a child is the
number holder’s legally adopted child, the agency applies the adoption laws of the
state where the adoption took place. 20 C.F.R. § 404.356. In this case, the NH adopted
Destiny in Oklahoma; therefore, Oklahoma law is controlling.
Oklahoma recognizes the validity of an adult adoption. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7507-1.1. Under
Oklahoma law, “adult” means an individual who has attained eighteen years of age. Okla.
Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7501-1.3. In order for a petitioner to adopt an adult, the
adult or her guardian must consent to the adoption in writing. Id. If the petitioner is married, the petitioner’s spouse must also consent to the
adoption in writing. Id. The petitioner must file the petition for adoption with the district court in the
county where the adoptive parents reside. Id. The district court will hold a hearing, and if the district court finds that it
is in the best interest of all parties, the district court may issue a final decree
of adoption. Id. Once a court grants the adoption, the adopted adult is the adoptive parent’s son
or daughter. Id. at § 7505-6.5(A). Thus, if a number holder validly adopts an adult in Oklahoma,
the agency considers the adopted adult to be eligible for benefits on the number holder’s
account. 20 C.F.R. § 404.356 (“you may be eligible for benefits as the insured’s child
if you were legally adopted by the insured”).
The Agency’s policy is that for an adoption to be legal, an adoption must be valid
under the law of the State where it took place. POMS GN 00306.135(1), 2001 WL 1926888. In this case, the NH lives in the City of Agra, Lincoln County,
Oklahoma, and he filed his Original Petition for Adoption and Application in the Lincoln
District Court, seeking to adopt Destiny. See footnote 2. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7507-1.1 (the petitioner must file the petition for adoption
with the district court in the county where the adoptive parents reside). The Final
Decree of Adoption states that “Destiny . . . cannot consent to her own adoption as
an adult individual because she is an incapacitated adult,” and Terri, Destiny’s biological
mother and guardian, consented to the adoption and joined in the petition. Id. (to be adopted, adult or her guardian must consent in writing). Nancy, the NH’s wife,
consented to the adoption and joined the petition. Id. (if the petitioner is married, the petitioner’s spouse must also consent in writing). The
Final Decree of Adoption states that the Lincoln District Court held a hearing on
May 15, 2013, and that the NH, Nancy, Terri, and Destiny personally appeared at the
hearing. Id. (the district court will hold a hearing). The Lincoln District Court found that
the NH and Nancy had raised Destiny “after she was made a ward of the Court more than
twenty six (26) years ago,” and that “it is in the best interest of the adult child
that the Court enters this Final Decree of Adoption at this time.” Id. (if the district court finds that it is in the best interest of all parties, the
court may issue a final decree of adoption). The Lincoln District Court entered a
Final Decree of Adoption dated May 15, 2013, granting the NH’s adoption of Destiny
and declaring Destiny to be the lawfully adopted child of the NH and Nancy. Therefore,
the NH and Destiny met all the legal requirements for a valid adult adoption under
Oklahoma law.
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-37c, 1983 WL 31272, which cites Gray v. Richardson, 474 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1973), holds that the agency is bound by a state court decision
if: 1) a state court of competent jurisdiction has previously determined an issue
in a claim for Social Security benefits; 2) the issue was genuinely contested by parties
with opposing interests; 3) the issue falls within domestic relations law; and 4)
the resolution is consistent with the law of the highest court of the state. In this
matter, the Lincoln District Court’s Final Decree of Adoption meets the first, third,
and fourth G~ prong, but it does not meet the second G~ prong. See SSR 83-37.
In regard to the first G~ prong, the Lincoln District Court issued the Final Decree of Adoption on May 15, 2013,
declaring Destiny to be the lawfully adopted child of the NH and Nancy. The Lincoln
District Court has proper jurisdiction over adoption cases, and the Final Decree of
Adoption resolved an issue in this case, i.e., established the parent-child relationship
between NH and Destiny. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7502-1.2 (“proceedings for adoption shall be brought in
the district court in the county where the petitioners or the child to be adopted
reside, in Tulsa County or in Oklahoma County”); id. § 7505-6.5(A) (establishing the parent-child relationship). Therefore, the Lincoln
District Court’s Final Decree of Adoption meets the first G~ prong.
In regard to the third G~ prong, adult-adoption issues fall within general domestic law in Oklahoma as adult
adoptions are provided for under the Oklahoma Adoption Code. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §§ 7507-1.1-7510-3.3. Thus, the Lincoln District Court’s
Final Decree of Adoption also meets the third G~ prong.
In regard to the fourth G~ prong, a court order meets the fourth prong of SSR 83-37c if it is consistent with
“the law of the state as declared by the supreme court of the state, or as it would
have been decided by that court had the point been considered.” See Garcia v. Sullivan, 883 F.2d 18, 20 (5th Cir. 1989). Although the Oklahoma Supreme Court has not addressed
the adult adoption statute, we believe that Hurt v. Noble, 817 P.2d 744, 745 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991), provides guidance on how the Oklahoma
Supreme Court would decide the legality of an adult adoption. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7507-1.1 (adult adoptions). In Hurt, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals noted that the Oklahoma Adoption Act has specific
provisions for dealing with the adoption of adults. H~, P.2d at 745. Thus, we believe that the Oklahoma Supreme Court would recognize the
adoption of an adult under the Oklahoma Adoption Code. Furthermore, the Lincoln District
Court’s Final Decree of Adoption is consistent with the laws that the Oklahoma Court
of Appeals has enunciated, and as demonstrated below, this case meets all the requirements
for a valid adoption of an adult. Thus, the Lincoln District Court’s Final Decree
of Adoption meets the fourth G~ prong.
The Lincoln District Court’s Final Decree of Adoption does not, however, meet the
second G~ prong, which requires that parties with opposing interests genuinely contest the issue
before the State court. The Final Decree of Adoption specifically states that no one
appeared in opposition to the adoption. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7501-1.3 (“Contested proceeding” means any proceeding
pursuant to the Oklahoma Adoption Code in which an interested party enters an appearance
to contest the petition). Because the evidence as submitted does not show the issue
was contested, the Final Decree of Adoption does not meet the second G~ prong and is not binding on the agency. We nonetheless believe that for the reasons
discussed herein and because the adoption was valid under Oklahoma law, we are free
to accept it. See POMS GN 00306.135(1), 2001 WL 1926888 (to be legal, an adoption must be valid under the law of the
State where it took place).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we believe that the NH validly adopted Destiny as his daughter under Oklahoma
law and that Destiny is the NH’s legally adopted child. Thus, Destiny may be eligible
to receive benefits on the NH’s account as the NH’s child.
Michael McGaughran
Regional Chief Counsel
By:___________
Ruben Montemayor
Assistant Regional Counsel