QUESTION PRESENTED
You asked whether the statement of Juliet (Claimant’s mother) that Herbert (wage earner)
is not the biological father of Abegail (Claimant) is clear and convincing evidence
rebutting the presumption of paternity under Hawaii’s Uniform Parentage Act, making
the Claimant ineligible for benefits on the wage earner’s record.
SHORT ANSWER
No, the mother’s statement that the wage earner is not the Claimant’s biological father
would not rebut the presumption of paternity under Hawaii law. The agency relies on
the same legal standards as a Hawaii court would apply. As the wage earner’s legal
child under the Uniform Parentage Act, the Claimant is entitled to child’s insurance
benefits on the wage earner’s record.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The wage earner Herbert married the Claimant’s mother Juliet on June 17, 1996. Claimant
Abegail was born on April. The Claimant’s mother and the wage earner have remained
married but have lived separately since December, 2005.
According to the Claimant’s mother, the wage earner is not the Claimant’s biological
father although he is listed as the father on the birth certificate. The Claimant’s
mother stated that the wage earner is actively involved in the Claimant’s life, contributing
financially to her care and housing, looking after her when needed, and taking her
to doctors’ visits, and that the Claimant and the wage earner have a strong emotional
bond. According to the Claimant’s mother, the wage earner voluntarily signed the Claimant’s
birth certificate knowing that he did not have a biological relationship to the child.
ANALYSIS
-
Under the Social Security Act (Act), an individual may be eligible for child’s insurance
benefits if she is the “child” of the insured, as defined in section 216(e) of the
Act, and was dependent on the insured when the application for benefits was filed.
Section 202(d)(1) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 404.350. Section 216(e)(1) of the Act defines
a “child” as “the child or legally adopted child of an individual.” Sections 216(h)(2)-(3)
of the Act provide the analytical framework that the agency must follow when determining
whether a child is the “child” of the insured. The Act directs the agency to “apply
such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property
by the courts of the State in which [the insured] is domiciled at the time [the applicant
child] files application.” Section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act; 20 C.F.R. 404.355(a)(1).
A child who cannot inherit may nonetheless be eligible for child’s insurance benefits
under limited circumstances, none of which are relevant here. [1] Consequently, to be the “child” of the insured, the Claimant must be able to inherit
from the insured under state law. In considering whether a child may inherit intestate
under state law, the agency applies the same laws and standard of proof as a state
court would use and does not require a claimant to obtain a state court determination
of paternity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(b).
If a claimant satisfies the definition of “child” under section 216(e) of the Act,
she must also show that she “was dependent upon” the insured when she filed her application,
in order to be eligible for benefits. Section 202(d)(1)(C)(i) of the Act. A child
is “deemed” dependent on the wage earner if the child is “legitimate” or if the wage
earner was living with or contributing to the support of the child at the time of
the application. Section 202(d)(3) of the Act. A claimant can satisfy the legitimacy
criterion by meeting the requirements of sections 216(h)(2)(B) or 216(h)(3), see id., or by meeting the intestacy requirements of section 216(h)(2)(A). 20 C.F.R. § 404.361(a),
see also Matthews v. Lucas 427 U.S. 495, 515 n.17 (1976); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 77-2c at n.2, SSR 79-35.
-
The Claimant qualifies as the wage earner’s “child” because she could inherit intestate
property from the wage earner under Hawaii law. See Section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act. Hawaii’s Uniform Probate Code (UPC) provides that
children may inherit by intestate succession from their parents, regardless of the
parents’ marital status. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 560:2-114. The UPC also provides that the parent and child relationship
may be established under chapter 584 of Hawaii’s Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). Id. The evidence here supports a finding that the Claimant is the wage earner’s natural
child under Hawaii law.
-
A.
Establishing Parent-Child Relationship Under the Uniform Parentage Act
Pursuant to Hawaii’s UPA, a man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if:
-
(1)
the child is born during the man’s marriage to the child’s natural mother, or within
300 days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, invalidity or divorce;
-
(2)
an invalid marriage before the child’s birth occurred and certain conditions are met;
-
(3)
an invalid marriage after the child’s birth occurred and certain conditions are met;
-
(4)
the man receives the minor child into his home and openly holds out the child as his
natural child;
-
(5)
genetic testing does not exclude the possibility of his paternity of the child; or
-
(6)
he voluntarily signs a written acknowledgement of paternity under oath, which is filed
with the department of health.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 584-4(a). The wage earner is the Claimant’s presumed father under
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 584-4(a)(1) because the Claimant was born during the marriage of
her mother and the wage earner. [2] A presumption under 584-4(a) may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear
and convincing evidence. The statute specifies that “[t]he presumption is rebutted
by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man.” Haw. Rev. Stat.
§ 584-4(b).
Hawaii courts have considered whether evidence rebuts the presumption of paternity
under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 584-4 in three published decisions, each time in the context
of a child custody or support dispute. See Doe v. Doe, 52 P.3d 255 (Haw. 2002); Inoue v. Inoue, 185 P.3d 834 (Haw. Ct. App. 2008); Child Support Enforcement Agency, State of Hawaii v. Doe, 963 P.2d 1135 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998). In two of these cases, the courts resolved the
legal issues without weighing the evidence to determine whether it met the clear and
convincing evidence standard. See Doe, 52 P.3d at 265, 267; Inoue, 185 P.3d at 843-45. In the third case, Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA),
the appellate court held that the evidence offered was clear and convincing and therefore
rebutted the presumption of paternity. CSEA, 963 P.2d at 1146-47.
The court in CSEA recognized that the Supreme Court of Hawaii defined clear and convincing
evidence as follows:
“[C]lear and convincing” evidence may be defined as an intermediate standard of proof
greater than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable
doubt required in criminal cases. It is that degree of proof which will produce in
the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought
to be established, and requires the existence of a fact be highly probable.
CSEA, 963 P.2d at 1146-47. In CSEA, the child’s mother was married when child was
conceived, but the evidence showed that the mother was separated from her husband
and did not have sexual relations with him for a year-long period ending two months
before the child’s birth. Id. Both the mother and her husband offered evidence that another man was the father;
the husband disavowed that he was the child’s father; and the child’s birth certificate
did not name the husband. Id. Here, by contrast, the wage earner’s name appears on the Claimant’s birth certificate,
and the evidence submitted to the agency indicates that he treats the Claimant like
a daughter, contributing to her care and financial support. A Hawaii court could conclude
that the statement of the Claimant’s mother here is not sufficient to rebut the presumption
of paternity, reasoning from the contrary holding in CSEA. [3]
Moreover, the distinctions between CSEA and this case are particularly significant
in light of the purpose of the UPA—to establish legal fathers for children born out
of wedlock, rather than to determine the biological fathers of those children. Doe, 52 P.3d at 261-62. In Doe, the Hawaii Supreme Court expressly overruled the conclusion
of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) that the purpose of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 584
is to “permit a ‘presumptively legitimate child of questionable parentage’ to ‘know
the truth of her [or his] parentage [.]’” Id. (internal citation omitted). Instead, the Supreme Court held:
The fundamental purposes of chapter 584 are “to provide substantive legal equality
for all children regardless of the marital status of their parents” and to protect
the rights and ensure the obligations of parents of children born out of wedlock.
. . . The substantive legal rights that illegitimate children were denied in many
states included such rights as the right to intestate succession, the right to benefit
from a statutory cause of action typically accorded to legitimate children, and the
right to be the beneficiary of child support from the father. For purposes of this
discussion, the UPA and, by extension, chapter 584 are largely concerned with establishing
a means by which to identify the person (usually the father) against whom these rights
may be asserted. In short, it is to ensure that every child, to the extent possible,
has an identifiable legal father. Although this goal will usually overlap with the
desire of a child to know the identity of his or her biological father, the two are
not always the same.
Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).
Significantly, the Doe court held that when a marital child presumption (section 584-4(a)(1))
conflicts with a biological parentage presumption from genetic testing (section 584-4(a)(5)),
the genetic test result does not, as a matter of law, control. Id. at 262. The Doe court also held that collateral estoppel barred the child’s mother
from offering genetic evidence that one man was the child’s biological father when
prior divorce proceedings had determined that another man, the mother’s husband when
the child was born, was the legal father. Id. at 265. These holdings underscore the Doe court’s conclusion that the purpose of
the UPA is to establish a legal parent to whom the child may turn for inheritance
and support, and not necessarily to determine biological parentage.
The Hawaii appellate court’s decision in Inoue v. Inoue is also instructive. Applying the UPA and relying on Doe, the Inoue court held that the family court correctly prevented a mother from claiming that her
former husband was not the legal father of her child, even though he “was indisputably
not [the child’s] biological father.” Inoue, 185 P.3d at 842-47. This decision further supports the principle that biological
parentage does not dictate the parent-child relationship under Hawaii law. See id.
Here, barring the Claimant from inheriting from the wage earner under the intestacy
provisions based solely on biology would undermine the purpose of Hawaii’s UPA. In
contrast, a holding endorsing the wage earner’s desire to be the Claimant’s legal
father (evidenced by his willingness to place his name on her birth certificate and
provide financial support), would further support the UPA’s goal of providing children
with legal fathers. Therefore, a Hawaii court likely would conclude that the wage
earner is the Claimant’s legal father under § 584-4(a) and that her mother’s statement
regarding her biological parentage is not clear and convincing evidence of legal paternity.
Such a finding would support the purpose of the UPA.
The Hawaii appellate court’s decision in Inoue v. Inoue is also instructive. Applying the UPA and relying on Doe, the Inoue court held that the family court correctly prevented a mother from claiming that
her former husband was not the legal father of her child, even though he “was indisputably
not [the child’s] biological father.” Inoue, 185 P.3d at 842-47. This decision further supports the principle that biological
parentage does not dictate the parent-child relationship under Hawaii law. See id.
Here, barring the Claimant from inheriting from the wage earner under the intestacy
provisions based solely on biology would undermine the purpose of Hawaii’s UPA. In
contrast, a holding endorsing the wage earner’s desire to be the Claimant’s legal
father (evidenced by his willingness to place his name on her birth certificate and
provide financial support), would further support the UPA’s goal of providing children
with legal fathers. Therefore, a Hawaii court likely would conclude that the wage
earner is the Claimant’s legal father under § 584-4(a) and that her mother’s statement
regarding her biological parentage is not clear and convincing evidence of legal paternity.
Such a finding would support the purpose of the UPA.
CONCLUSION
The Claimant meets the definition of “child” under section 216(e) of the Act. Pursuant
to Hawaii’s UPA, the Claimant can show that she is the child of the wage earner because
the statement of Claimant’s mother regarding the child’s biological parentage would
not rebut the presumption that the wage earner is the Claimant’s legal father. Therefore,
according to Hawaii’s Uniform Probate Code, the Claimant would be able to inherit
intestate from the wage earner, meeting the criteria for an eligible “child” under
section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act. Because the Claimant would be able to inherit intestate
from the wage earner under Hawaii intestacy law, the legitimacy criterion is satisfied
and she is deemed dependent on the wage earner. The agency need not wait for an adjudication
of paternity by a state court because the agency applies the same law and standards
as the state court. [4] 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(b). Thus, the Claimant is eligible for child’s insurance benefits.