1. Maternal Inheritance under Texas Intestate Succession Laws
Texas law allows a child to inherit property from his or her deceased parent by intestate
succession. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. §§ 201.001˗.003 (if a person who dies intestate does not have
a spouse, the person’s estate passes to the person’s children), 201.051 (maternal
inheritance), 201.052 (paternal inheritance). Of relevance here, section 201.051 of
the Estates Code provides as follows for maternal inheritance under intestate succession:
(a) For purposes of inheritance, a child is the child of the child’s biological or
adopted mother, and the child and the child’s issue shall inherit from the child’s
mother and the child’s maternal kindred, both descendants, ascendants, and collateral
kindred in all degrees, and they may inherit from the child and the child’s issue.
However, if a child has intended parents, as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code,
under a gestational agreement . . . the child is the child of the intended mother
and not the biological mother or gestational mother unless the biological mother is
also the intended mother.
(b) This section does not permit inheritance by a child for whom no right of inheritance
accrues under Section 201.056 or by the child’s issue.
Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051 (effective Sept. 1, 2015, to present).
Here, there is no gestational agreement; rather, the evidence establishes that the
NH is the Claimant’s biological and birth mother. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051(a); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.201(a)(1) (the mother-child relationship is established
between a woman and a child by the woman giving birth to the child). Section 201.056
pertains to persons not in being at the time of the NH’s death, which is not relevant
here. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. §§ 201.051(b), 201.056. Accordingly, the Claimant, as the
NH’s biological child, has the right to inherit from the NH under Texas intestate
succession law. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051(a).
The evidence also shows that the NH’s parent-child relationship with the Claimant
was subsequently terminated by a State court order in 2011. See Order of Termination,
In the
Interest of J~, a Minor Child, Cause No. XXXXX, District Court, 216th Judicial District of Gillespie County, Texas.
We next consider the primary issue posed – the impact of this termination of the parent-child
relationship upon the Claimant’s right to inherit from the NH, her biological and
birth mother.
2. Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship and the Child’s Right to Inherit from
the Parent under Texas Law
The law regarding termination of the parent-child relationship is contained in sections
161.001 through 161.211 of the Texas Family Code. Texas law provides that a court
may order involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds
by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has undertaken certain actions set
forth in the law, including as relevant here, that the parent has “failed to support
the child in accordance with the parent’s ability during a period of one year ending
within six months of the date of the filing of the petition.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann.
§ 161.001(b) (setting forth the grounds for termination of the parent-child relationship).
“If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination of the
parent-child relationship, it shall render an order terminating the parent-child relationship.”
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(a); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007 (defining “clear and convincing evidence” as “the measure
or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief
or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established”). The court
order terminating the parent-child relationship must include a finding that a request
for identification of a court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction has been made
and all parties entitled to notice have been notified. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(d);
see
also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.001 (a court acquires continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
over matters affecting the parent-child relationship on the rendition of a final order).
The Order of Termination complies with Texas law. The Order of Termination identifies
a proper ground for termination – the NH’s failure to support the Claimant in accordance
with her ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date
of the filing of the petition. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(F). The Court found in the Order of Termination
that M~ proved this ground by clear and convincing evidence. See id. The Court found in this Order of Termination that the Court had jurisdiction and
no other court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the case. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. §§ 155.01, 161.206(d). The Court found in this Order of Termination
that all persons entitled to citation were properly cited. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(d). And finally, based on clear and convincing evidence
establishing legal grounds for termination, the Court ordered termination of the parent-child
relationship between the NH and the Claimant. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(a). Thus, this Order of Termination complies with Texas
law.
With regard to the rights and duties impacted by the termination of the parent-child
relationship, Texas law states:
Except as provided by Section 161.2016 [regarding limited post-termination contact
with the child], an order terminating the parent-child relationship divests the parent
and the child of all legal rights and duties with respect to each other, except that the child retains the right
to inherit from and through the parent unless the court otherwise provides.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(b) (emphasis added); see also LG Electronics, USA, Inc.
v. Grigg, 424 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2014, no pet.) (noting that an order terminating
the parent-child relationship divests the child of all legal rights with respect to
the parent except the right to inherit from the parent); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 151.001
(listing the legal rights and duties of a parent as to a child).[3] Thus, Texas statutory law expressly provides that a child retains the right to inherit
from a parent following a court order terminating the parent-child relationship, unless
the court order expressly provides otherwise. Here, the Court did not include any
finding indicating that the Claimant’s right to inherit from the NH was impacted by
this Order of Termination. Therefore, under Texas law and per the terms of this Order
of Termination, the Claimant retains the right to inherit from the NH.
Finally, as the evidence concerning this parent-child relationship centers upon a
State court order, we are mindful of the considerations required under Social Security
Ruling (SSR) 83-37c and Gray v. Richardson. See SSR 83-37c (adopting Gray v. Richardson, 474 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1973)); POMS GN 00306.015B.2. Generally, a State court decision does not bind the agency if it involves a proceeding
to which the agency was not a party. See
id. Pursuant to SSR 83-37c, which adopts the Sixth Circuit’s Gray decision, State court determinations of domestic relations matters are entitled to
deference and bind the agency only if the following four factors are satisfied:
1. an issue in a claim for Social Security benefits was previously adjudicated by
a State court of competent jurisdiction;
2. the issue was genuinely contested before the State court by parties with opposing
interests;
3. the issue falls within the general category of domestic relations law; and
4. the resolution by the State trial court is consistent with the law enunciated by
the highest court in the State.
SSR 83-37c.[4]
We believe that all four factors are likely met here, which means the agency is bound
by this Order of Termination. First, the parent-child relationship and the Claimant’s
right to inherit from the NH (the central issue of Claimant’s application for child’s
benefits on the NH’s record) was at issue in this Order of Termination, and this State
district court is a court of competent jurisdiction for suits affecting the parent-child
relationship. Second, the petition to terminate the parent-child relationship was
brought in this adverse proceeding by M~ (the father) against the NH (the mother),
who was properly served, in which M~ was required to prove the grounds for termination
by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, we believe the issue of involuntary termination
of the parent-child relationship was genuinely contested by parties with opposing
interests. Third, the parent-child relationship falls within the general category
of domestic relations law. Fourth, the Order of Termination is consistent with Texas
law, as shown above.
Even though the agency is likely bound by this State court order, the Order of Termination
does not impact the Claimant’s right to inherit from the NH (the Claimant’s biological
and birth mother) under Texas law and under the express findings in the Order of Termination.
We believe Texas courts would find that the Claimant has the right to inherit from
the NH under Texas intestate succession law. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051(a);
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(b). Consequently, per section 216(h)(2)(A), there is
legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s child for purposes
of her application for child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.