TN 21 (03-20)

PR 01120.048 Texas

A. PR 2020-0010 Texas State Law - Use of Paternal Uncle DNA Report or Possible Written Acknowledgement to Establish Child Relationship

Date: February 5, 2020

1. Syllabus

Once the parent-child relationship is established under Texas law, the effective date of the parent-child relationship is established as of the child’s date of birth regardless of the parents’ marital status and regardless of the method or type of evidence establishing the parent-child relationship.

2. Question Presented

You requested an opinion on whether the evidence submitted in this case establishes a parent-child relationship between the deceased number holder T~ (the number holder) and the claimant K~) for purposes of K~’s application for child’s insurance benefits on the number holder’s record under the Social Security Act (Act) as his child. Specifically, applying section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, you asked whether, under Texas law, a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test report of a paternal uncle (paternal uncle DNA report), and other evidence, including a greeting card and Facebook post, are sufficient to establish a child relationship under Texas law. If so, you inquired as to the effective date of their parent-child relationship. In the alternative, you asked whether the evidence established a biological parent-child relationship between the number holder and K~ under section 216(h)(3) of the Act for purposes of finding a parent-child relationship.

3. Answer

We believe a Texas court would find that the paternal uncle DNA report does not establish the number holder’s paternity as to K~ because it does not identify the number holder specifically as K~’s father in accordance with Texas law on genetic testing. However, we believe a Texas court would find the totality of the evidence provided in this case constitutes clear and convincing evidence that the number holder is K~’s father. Thus, we believe a Texas court would find that K~ has proven a right to inherit from the number holder under Texas intestate succession law. Therefore, we believe there is legal support for SSA to find that K~ has proven a parent-child relationship under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act for purposes of his application for child’s insurance benefits on the number holder’s record.[1]

4. Background

K~ was born to B~ on April xx, 2011. It is our understanding that B~ and the number holder were never married, but B~ is alleging that the number holder is K~’s father. You advised that the number holder died on October xx, 2014, while domiciled in Texas. On January xx, 2019, B~ filed an application for surviving child’s benefits on K~’s behalf on the number holder’s record.[2]

Although we do not have a copy of the Texas birth certificate, it is our understanding based on B~’s statements to the agency that no one, including the number holder, is listed as the father on K~’s official birth certificate. B~ stated to the agency that the number holder did not sign K~’s birth certificate because he did not want to pay child support.

In a Form SSA-2519 (Child Relationship Statement) completed on July xx, 2019, B~ reported that a court never decreed the number holder to be K~’s parent or ordered the number holder to contribute to K~’s support, and that the number holder did not make regular and substantial contributions to K~’s child support. She also reported that the number holder never listed K~ as his child in any official documents. However, B~ stated that the number holder admitted orally to his brother, A~, that he was K~’s parent. While B~ also stated that the number holder listed the child in a family tree or record, she clarified in an attached statement that she was referring to the post-mortem publication in the number holder’s funeral program. B~ reasoned that the number holder’s verbal acknowledgement to his family and friends supported their inclusion of K~ as one of the number holder’s survivors in the funeral program. Finally, in the Child Relationship Statement, B~ also stated she provided to the agency other written evidence showing that the number holder was K~’s parent, including the following:

  • An April xx, 2011 Message from Social Security (Form SSA-2853-OP3) shows that shortly after his birth, B ~ requested a social security number for K~, providing a hyphenated last name that included hers and the number holder’s last names – “K~.”

  • A May xx, 2011 “To Whom It May Concern” letter written by B~ with the subject of “verification/update of residency” for apartment number xx in the Cypress Lake Community appears to inform the apartment complex that the number holder “has not assumed residency” in the apartment, but that she was adding her son K~ as a new resident in her apartment. In this letter, B~ identifies the number holder as K~’s father.

  • A May xx, 2011 Hallmark greeting card states, “Happy 1st Mother’s Day, Love T~ + K~.”

  • A June xx, 2011 police report reflects that B~’s grandmother called the police and asked them to check on B~ because she was “afraid that her baby’s father might have hurt her. His name T~.”

  • An August or September 2011 Facebook printout[3] shows that the number holder “shared” B~’s photo album on Facebook and commented on a photo of K~ and B~, stating, “Hi K~, your dad.”

  • Documentation from Washington State's Department of Social & Health Services (DSHS) from 2011 and 2012 confirms that B~ claimed that the number holder was K~'s father prior to his death and shows why the number holder was not paying child support for K~.

o As explained in statements from B~ and in information from the DSHS, in June 2011, B~ moved to Washington with K~, alleging she fled to escape the number holder’s domestic violence.

o In July 2011, B~ requested a no contact order from the DSHS and claimed she had good cause not to help the State try to collect child and/or medical support for K~ from the number holder as the non-custodial parent due to a domestic violence threat. She attached letters of support from M~ (the mother of one of the number holder’s other children), A2~ (B~’s cousin), D~ (B~’s former co-worker), and T2~ (B~’s former neighbor), who all supported her claims of domestic violence from the number holder and the threat posed to B~ as well as to K~.

o In an email dated May xx, 2012, B~ reported to the DSHS that she received a voicemail on May xx, 2012 from the number holder in which he stated, “You can’t keep my son away from me.” In response, the DSHS recommended that she obtain a restraining order and file a police report.

o On December xx, 2012,[4] the DSHS issued a Good Cause Decision finding that B~ did not need help in child and/or medical support collection and her cash assistance could not be reduced for failing to cooperate with the Division of Child Support based on the threat of abuse or harm from the number holder as K~’s non-custodial parent. Further, the DSHS closed the case and stated it would not try to establish paternity, enter a support order, or collect/enforce the non-custodial parent’s support obligation.

  • B~ provided the number holder’s funeral program. An obituary included in the number holder’s funeral program lists K~ among the number holder’s survivors. The obituary states: “T~ leaves to cherish his memory, B2~, M2~, M3~, K~, and a Grand Daughter K2~.” The obituary also lists A~ as one of the number holder’s brothers.[5]

In addition to the documents above, B~ provided a Relationship Report from Laboratory Corporation of America, LabCorp Case No. XXX-XXXXXX, reflecting DNA testing of a B~ (as the mother), K~ (as the child), and A~ (as the paternal uncle) as well as chain of custody documentation. This December xx, 2018 paternal uncle DNA report states testing “was undertaken to provide evidence that a brother [the number holder] of the alleged paternal uncle, A~, could be the biological father of the child, K~, whose mother was also tested.” The combined avuncular index is 547 to 1 and the probability of a relationship is 99.82%. The report concludes that “a brother of the alleged paternal uncle, A~, could be the biological father of the child, K~.” The paternal uncle DNA report is signed and notarized on December xx, 2018, by M4~ Ph.D., D-ABC on behalf of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, who attested to the truth and correctness of the results in the report under penalty of perjury. The paternal uncle DNA report states that Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is accredited by the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB).

A Chain of Custody document associated with the paternal uncle DNA report includes a photo of B~ and K~ and appears to show their fingerprints. S~ signed this chain of custody document on December xx, 2017, indicating that she collected the specimens at Alternative Nursing Services, Inc. in Yakima, Washington and put the specimens in a sealed container. J~ signed this form on December xx, 2017, affirming that he or she received the specimens at LabCorp via Federal Express and that the specimen container was sealed with no signs of tampering. A separate Chain of Custody report appears to show A~’s photograph and fingerprint, which J2~ signed on December xx, 2018, indicating that she collected the specimen from A~ at LabCorp in Indianapolis, Indiana and put his specimen in a sealed container. Someone (the signature is illegible) also signed this form on December xx, 2018, affirming that he or she received the specimen at LabCorp via LabCorp courier and that the specimen container was sealed with no signs of tampering.

5. Analysis

A. Federal Law: Entitlement to Child’s Insurance Benefits under the Act as a Natural Child Per Section 216(h)(2)(A)

Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to child’s insurance benefits on an insured individual’s account if, among other things, he is the insured number holder’s child.[6] See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350. The Act and regulations define “child” as an insured number holder’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-.359. Consistent with the scope of your request, our inquiry focuses on whether K~ is the number holder’s natural child. To determine a claimant’s status as a natural child, SSA must determine whether the claimant could inherit the insured number holder’s personal property as his child under the intestacy laws of the state where the insured number holder had his permanent home at the time of his death. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(1), (b). Texas law controls because the number holder’s permanent home was in Texas when he died. Therefore, we apply Texas intestate succession laws to determine whether K~ could inherit from the number holder as his child.

B. State Law: Paternal Inheritance under Texas Intestate Succession Laws

Texas law allows a child to inherit property from his 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). Section 201.052 of the Estates Code, provides as follows for paternal inheritance under intestate succession:

(a) For purposes of inheritance, a child is the child of the child’s biological father if:

(1) the child is born under circumstances described by Section 160.201, Family Code;

(2) the child is adjudicated to be the child of the father by court decree under Chapter 160, Family Code;

(3) the child was adopted by the child’s father; or

(4) the father executed an acknowledgment of paternity under Subchapter D, Chapter 160, Family Code,1 or a similar statement properly executed in another jurisdiction.

….

(c) A person may petition the probate court for a determination of right of inheritance from a decedent if the person:

(1) claims to be a biological child of the decedent and is not otherwise presumed to be a child of the decedent; or

(2) claims inheritance through a biological child of the decedent who is not otherwise presumed to be a child of the decedent.

(d) If under Subsection (c) the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the purported father was the biological father of the child:

(1) the child is treated as any other child of the decedent for purposes of inheritance; and

(2) the child and the child’s issue may inherit from the child’s paternal kindred, both descendants, ascendants, and collateral kindred in all degrees, and they may inherit from the child and the child’s issue.

Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.052. As explained next, a court adjudication of paternity is most relevant to the present situation and can establish the right to inherit under section 201.052(a)(1), (2), (c), and (d) of the Texas Estates Code.

1. Texas Court Adjudication of Paternity and the Right to Paternal Inheritance under Section 201.052(a)(1), (2), (c), and (d)

Section 201.052(a)(3) and (4) of the Texas Estates Code do not apply here because the number holder did not adopt K~ or execute an acknowledgment of paternity.

Section 201.052(a)(1) of the Texas Estates Code refers us to section 160.201 of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), which is in the Texas Family Code. The only relevant method for establishing paternity under section 160.201(b) of the Texas Family Code that might apply in the present situation is a court adjudication.[7] See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.201(b)(3). Section 201.052(a)(2) of the Texas Estates Code also provides for paternal inheritance on the basis of a court adjudication under the provisions of Chapter 160 of the UPA in the Texas Family Code.

Additionally, section 201.052(c) and (d) of the Texas Estates Code provides that for purposes of determining the right to inherit, a probate court can make a paternity determination based on clear and convincing evidence. Thus, all three of these methods under section 201.052(a)(1), (2), (c), and (d) provide for inheritance based on a court determination establishing paternity.

Here, B~ has advised SSA that there is no court order declaring the number holder to be K~’s parent. However, SSA regulations do not require an applicant to obtain a state court adjudication. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(b)(2). Instead, SSA “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, to establish that K~ has a right to paternal inheritance from the number holder under section 201.052(a)(1), (2), (c), and (d), K~ must do so under the standard of proof a Texas state court would use to determine paternity.

2. Whether a Texas Court Would Find the Paternal Uncle DNA Report Rebuttably Identifies the Number Holder as K~’s Father Such that He Must be Adjudicated as the Father

B~ has provided a paternal uncle DNA test to support K~’s relationship with the number holder. Thus, we first consider the standard of proof under Texas law as to genetic tests.

In general, under Texas law, if the DNA testing and report satisfy the reliability and authenticity requirements, and the testing reveals at least a 99% probability of paternity with a combined paternity index of at least 100 to 1, a man is rebuttably identified as the child’s father. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.505(a); see also Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 204.102 (the presumption under section 160.505 of the Family Code applies to the results of genetic testing ordered under the Estates Code in proceedings to declare heirship), § 204.152 (same). “[T]he man identified as the father of a child under Section 160.505 shall be adjudicated as being the father of the child.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.631(b). The results of genetic testing can only be rebutted by other genetic tests. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 160.505(b), 160.631; Tex. Estates Code Ann. §§ 204.102, 204.152. Thus, Texas law sets a threshold of 99% probability of paternity that must be met to require a court to adjudicate paternity.

In addition, Texas law requires the genetic testing and reports must meet specific statutory requirements showing reliability and authenticity. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 160.503, 160.504, 160.631; see also Tex. Estates Code Ann. §§ 204.001-.201 (genetic testing in proceedings to declare heirship; the genetic testing report must comply with section 160.504 of the Texas Family Code). First, the DNA testing must be in a laboratory accredited by the AABB or another accrediting body designated in the Texas statute. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.503(a). Second, the genetic testing results must be in a record and a laboratory designee must sign the DNA report under penalty of perjury. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.504(a). Third, testimony or documentation must establish a reliable, five-part chain of custody meeting these requirements: (1) the names and photographs of the persons whose specimens have been taken; (2) the names of the persons who collected the specimens; (3) the places and dates the specimens were collected; (4) the names of the persons who received the specimens in the testing laboratory; and (5) the dates the specimens were received. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.504(b)(1)-(5).

When a man has died and cannot provide a specimen for genetic testing, the court may consider the results of genetic testing of the man’s brothers or sisters. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.508(a)(2); Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 204.054. If the genetic testing identifies more than one man as the possible father of the child, a Texas court may order each of those men to undergo further genetic testing to identify the genetic father. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 160.505(c), 160.508; Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 204.054.

Here, as Texas law allows because the number holder is deceased, the evidence includes a paternal uncle DNA report. The paternal uncle DNA report shows a combined avuncular index of 547 to 1 and a relationship probability of 99.82% that a brother of A~ is K~’s father. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.505(a)(1) (requiring paternity to be established at least at 99% probability). However, in addition to A~, the number holder’s funeral program identified four other men as the number holder’s—and presumably, A~’s—potential brothers.[8] Thus, even though the DNA testing satisfies the 99% statutory probability requirement, it does not identify specifically which of A~’s brothers is K~’s father. Rather, it shows only a familial relationship between A~ and K~; therefore, it does not rule out the possibility of one of the four other potential B3~ brothers being K~’s biological father.[9]

In summary, the paternal uncle DNA report does not rebuttably identify the number holder as K~’s father given the existence of the number holder’s other brothers. Because the testing and report do not meet all of the Texas statutory requirements for genetic testing, the paternal uncle DNA report would not require a court to adjudicate the number holder as K~’s father. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.631(c) (“the man identified as the father of a child under Section 160.505 shall be adjudicated as being the father of the child.”). Our analysis does not end here, however. If a court finds that genetic testing does not identify (or exclude) a man as the child’s father, the test results along with other evidence are still admissible to adjudicate the issue of paternity. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.631(e); Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 204.153. While Section 160.631(e) of the Texas Family Code does not speak to the standard of proof, Texas courts have determined that under Texas law, a child’s paternity after the death of the father is established under the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof. See In re Interest of A.S.L., 923 S.W.2d 814, 818 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 1996, no writ) (applying the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof to determine paternity under the Texas Family Code after the father’s death). Additionally, as noted above, section 201.052(c) of the Texas Estates Code expressly provides that for determining the right to inherit, a probate court may make a paternity determination based on clear and convincing evidence of paternity. Thus, we next consider whether the totality of the evidence, including the paternal uncle DNA report, satisfies the clear and convincing standard of proof to establish that the number holder is K~’s father and that K~ has the right to inherit from the number holder as his child.

3. Whether a Texas Court Would Find Clear and Convincing Evidence that the Number Holder is K~’s Father

Clear and convincing evidence is “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.”[10] Villery v. Solomon, 16 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007. In cases involving proof of paternity, the fact finder must decide in each case whether the evidence presented is clear and convincing. Garza v. Maverick Mkt., Inc., 768 S.W.2d 273, 275-76 (Tex. 1989) (holding that in a wrongful death action an alleged child must have the opportunity to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is the deceased’s child). In Garza, the Texas Supreme Court listed some of the potential evidence an alleged child may use to prove paternity, including: blood or genetic tests; evidence of physical resemblance of the child to the alleged father; prior statements by the alleged father that he was the father of the child, or other admissions by him bearing on his relationship to the child; and evidence of periods of conception and gestation. Id. at 276; see also In re Interest of B.M., 570 S.W.2d 493, 501 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1978, no writ). However, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that it could not predict whether some or all of this evidence would rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence in any particular case. Id. Therefore, we must determine whether a Texas court would find that the totality of the evidence provided here satisfies the clear and convincing evidence standard to establish that K~ is the number holder’s child.

We addressed the paternal uncle DNA report in detail above. The paternal uncle DNA report establishes a clear familial relationship between the paternal uncle, A~ (the number holder’s brother), and K~, but it does not identify which of A~’s brothers is K~’s father. Thus, a Texas court would likely need DNA testing of the number holder’s four other brothers or other evidence regarding B~’s relationship with the brothers to rule them out as K~’s father if the court were to decide the issue based upon the paternal uncle DNA report alone.[11] See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 160.505(c), 160.508; Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 204.054. Here, however, B~ has provided other evidence to support the parent-child relationship as to K~ and the number holder. Importantly, nothing in this other evidence suggests one of the other brothers is instead K~’s father.

There are documents dated around K~’s birth and from prior to the number holder’s death that are consistent with B~’s contention that the number holder (and not one of the brothers) was K~’s father and reflect that she undertook actions consistent with this contention during the number holder’s lifetime. B~ claims that the number holder lived with—and supported—her while she was pregnant and shortly after K~’s birth. She provided an email from a next-door-neighbor, T2~, from July 2011 confirming that the neighbor witnessed and overheard arguments between B~ and “her partner,” the number holder, while B~ was pregnant and after K~ was born. An SSA message dated the week after K~’s birth in April 2011 indicates that B~ initially gave K~ the number holder’s last name as she requested a social security card for “K~.” Although this does not rule out one of the other B3~ brothers as K~’s father, it supports B~’s assertion that the number holder was K~’s father.

B~ did not identify the number holder as K~’s father on his birth certificate,[12] nor did she seek state-sponsored support for K~ from the number holder. However, B~ alleged that she did not seek such support or put the number holder’s name on official documents due to a potential for abuse by the number holder, which the Washington DSHS determined was good cause for a no contact order. Additionally, B~ claims that the number holder refused to sign K~’s birth certificate because he did not want to pay support, and not because he denied paternity.

The Washington DSHS documentation from 2011 and 2012 confirms that shortly after K~’s birth, B~ identified to DSHS that the number holder (and not one of his brothers) was K~’s father, reported to DSHS that she had to leave the State due to alleged domestic violence by the number holder, and requested that DSHS find that she had good cause in not helping the DSHS Division of Child Support try to collect child support from the number holder due to his threats of violence. A June 2011 police call report reflects that when B~’s grandmother called the police to report that she was afraid that B~’s “baby’s father” might have hurt B~, she identified the number holder as the baby’s father. This police call report shows that B was going to seek child support from the father—the number holder—and that made him angry.

There are several pieces of evidence indicating the number holder’s recognition that K~ was his child during this lifetime. A May 2011 greeting card wishes B~ a happy Mother’s Day and is signed, “Love T~ + K~.” B~ claims the number holder signed and gave her the greeting card.[13]

In an August or September 2011 Facebook post, the number holder appears to acknowledge K~’s paternity by “sharing” B~s photo album containing pictures of K~ and signing a comment to K~, “your dad.” A May 2012 email exchange between Washington DSHS and B~ reflects that she reported that the number holder left her a voicemail message on May 28, 2012, in which he stated, in reference to K~, “You can’t keep my son away from me.”

Finally, the number holder’s funeral program implies that he was K~’s father: “T~ leaves to cherish his memory, B2~, M2~, M3~, K~ and a Grand Daughter K2~.” Although there is no indication that the number holder took any part of writing his obituary and while it does not explicitly list K~ as his child, it implies that K~ is his child because there is evidence that at least one other child in that list, M2~, is the number holder’s child. B~ also claims that she included K~ in the obituary because the number holder admitted paternity orally to his brother, A~, as well as “to friends and family.” There is no information that any one of the other brothers identified in the funeral program is claiming that he, instead of the number holder, is K~’s father.

Thus, the totality of these documents reflects actions B~ and the number holder took during his lifetime that are consistent with B~’s current claim that the number holder (and not a brother) is K~’s father. The record reflects multiple instances where the number holder appears to have admitted paternity (orally to B~ and his family, on social media, and in a greeting card given to B~). Perhaps more importantly, there is no evidence that the number holder ever denied paternity and no evidence that one of his brothers claimed paternity as to K~.[14]

Although B~’s statements are not all supported by documentary evidence, Texas courts have assigned weight to the mother’s statements and found such corroborating evidence unnecessary to meet the clear and convincing standard for paternity determinations under the Estates Code. See, e.g., Villery, 16 S.W.3d at 108 (finding clear and convincing evidence of paternity despite conflicting evidence because statements supporting paternity were found credible); McNary v. Khan, 792 S.W.2d 126, 127 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, no writ) (considering mother’s statements of paternity as one of the factors in considering whether a court could find paternity by clear and convincing evidence). Moreover, Texas courts have indicated that an inheritance statute such as the one at issue here should be construed liberally “to effectuate its purpose.” Matherson v. Pope, 852 S.W.2d 285, 290 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, writ denied); see also Tipps, 768 F.Supp. at 580 (“While proof under clear and convincing evidence must weigh heavier than merely the greater weight of credible evidence, there is no requirement that evidence must be unequivocal or undisputed.”).

Accordingly, we believe the totality of the evidence—including B~’s statements, the number holder’s acknowledgements, the paternal uncle DNA report clearly showing a familial relationship between K~ and the number holder’s brother A~, the multiple reports in support of the DSHS no contact order referencing the number holder as K~’s father, and the implication of a parent-child relationship between the number holder and K~ in the number holder’s funeral program—would instill a firm belief or conviction in a fact finder that the number holder was K~’s biological father. Therefore, we believe a Texas court would find that K~ would inherit from the number holder as his child under Texas intestate succession laws. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.052(a)(1), (2), (c), (d). As a result, SSA may reasonably conclude K~ is the number holder’s natural child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act for purposes of his application for child’s insurance benefits on the number holder’s record.

C. Effective Date of Parent-Child Relationship

Agency policy distinguishes among legitimate, illegitimate, and legitimated children and differences with the effective date of the parent-child relationship, but Texas law does not use the terms legitimate or illegitimate or provide a mechanism for legitimating a child. See POMS GN 00306.001(H) (defining “illegitimate child”), (M) (defining “legitimate child”), (N) (defining “legitimizing event”), GN 00306.050(A)(3) (“a child legitimated after birth is considered to be legitimate from birth”), GN 00306.055(A)(1) (distinguishing between a legitimated child and an illegitimate child with inheritance rights), (3) (“An act/event conferring inheritance rights generally has effect only from the date of such act/event. . . . If a provision . . . shows that a State law confers inheritance rights based on an adjudication of paternity (but does not legitimate the child), and the provision is effective prospectively only, the claimant’s status as the NH’s child is established effective with” the dates of the evidence submitted.). Once the parent-child relationship is established under Texas law, the effective date of the parent-child relationship is established as of the child’s birth regardless of the parents’ marital status and regardless of the method or type of evidence establishing the parent-child relationship. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.052; Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.202. Thus, the effective date of the parent-child relationship between the number holder and K~ is K~’s date of birth, April xx, 2011.

6. Conclusion

Based on the information provided to the agency, we believe that a Texas court would conclude that, while the paternal uncle DNA test report does not alone establish that the number holder is K~’s father, the totality of the evidence constitutes clear and convincing evidence under Texas law that the number holder is K~’s father, and that K~ can inherit from the number holder under Texas intestate succession law. Therefore, there is legal support for the agency to find that K~ is the number holder’s child for purposes of determining his entitlement to child’s insurance benefits on the number holder’s account as the number holder’s child as of April xx, 2011.

B. PR 11-012 Texas Law – Use of Full Sibling Screening Report to Establish Child Relationship (NH Bobby C~, SSN ~) – REPLY

DATE: October 28, 2010

This opinion has been removed due to changes in Texas state law.

DATE: February 11, 2020

C. PR 07-189 Texas State Law Effective Date of Child Relationship (NH Barnard B~, SSN ~) - REPLY

DATE: August 7, 2007

This opinion has been removed due to changes in Texas state law.

DATE: February 11, 2020

D. PR 07-122 Texas State Law Evidence to Rebut Presumption of Paternity and Effective Date of Child Relationship (NH Bryan W. B~; SSN ~) -- REPLY

DATE: April 27, 2007

This opinion has been removed due to changes in Texas state law.

DATE: February 11, 2020

E. PR 07-044 Texas State Law Use of Grandparentage Screening Report to Establish Child Relationship (NH Joel T. M~, SSN ~) - REPLY

DATE: January 10, 2007

This opinion has been removed due to changes in Texas state law.

DATE: February 11, 2020

F. PR 06-249 Texas Law Using DNA Testing to Establish Child Relationship -- (NH Lee E~, SSN ~)--REPLY

DATE: March 22, 2002

This opinion has been removed due to changes in Texas state law.

DATE: February 11, 2020

G. PR 05-182 Texas State Law Use of Grandparentage Screening Report to Establish Child Relationship (NH Brian K. R~, SSN ~) - REPLY

DATE: June 23, 2005

This opinion has been removed due to changes in Texas state law.

DATE: February 11, 2020


Footnotes:

[1]

Because we found clear and convincing evidence to establish a parent-child relationship under Section 216(h)(2)(A), we do not address your alternative question regarding parentage under section 216(h)(3).

[2]

B~ originally filed an application for surviving child’s benefits on December xx, 2014. The agency denied the claim on July xx, 2015. You advised that this claim is subject to reopening based on new evidence. B~ did not include a Mother’s Day greeting card or the Facebook post in the original application. You further advised that the agency awarded surviving child’s benefits to two of the number holder’s other children, but we do not know the basis for awarding these two children benefits on the number holder’s record. You advised that both of those applications listed K~ as the number holder’s child. It is our understanding that B~ is not the mother of these two other children who are receiving benefits on the number holder’s record and would not have filed their applications.

[3]

The printout of the Facebook page that B~ submitted shows that the number holder’s post was dated August xx or xx, 2011. B~ handwrote on the printout “Sep. xx, 2011.”

[4]

The date of the original Good Cause Decision is unclear; the documents reviewed include only a Review Decision dated December xx, 2012.

[5]

The program also list J3~, D2~, L~, and D3~ as the number holder’s brothers, indicating that the number holder had five total surviving brothers. It is unclear whether all five brothers had the same biological parents as A~ and the number holder because L~ and D2~ have different last names (the program also listed a sister named A3~, which suggests D2~ may be a brother-in-law rather than a biological brother). Thus, it is unclear from this program how many biological brothers share the same mother and father as the number holder and A~, which is relevant to the analysis of the paternal uncle DNA evidence as discussed in this legal opinion.

[6]

The child claimant must satisfy other criteria for his application for child’s insurance benefits that are outside the scope of this legal opinion request. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350. We focus only on the requirement of a parent-child relationship between the claimant and the number holder. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(1).

[7]

Under section 160.201(b), the father-child relationship is established by: (1) an unrebutted presumption of the man’s paternity of the child under section 160.204 of the UPA; (2) an acknowledgment of the man’s paternity in accordance with the UPA; (3) a court adjudication of the man’s paternity; (4) the man’s adoption of the child; or (5) the man’s consenting to assisted reproduction by his wife under Subchapter H of the UPA, which resulted in the child’s birth. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.201(b). Here, there is no marriage that would give rise to a presumption of paternity and no allegation that the number holder held out K~ as his child during the first two years of his life, no acknowledgement as provided for in the UPA, no adoption, and no consent to assisted reproduction. Thus, the only remaining relevant provision for establishing a father-child relationship is the one pertaining to a court adjudication of paternity under section 160.201(b)(3) of the Texas Family Code.

[8]

As noted in the background section above, in addition to A~, the funeral program also lists J3~, D2~, L~, and D3~ as the number holder’s brothers, indicating that the number holder had five total surviving brothers. It is unclear whether all five brothers had the same biological parents as A~ and the number holder.

[9]

We note that the paternal uncle DNA report otherwise appears to meet the Texas Family Code’s reliability and authenticity requirements. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.504(b)(1)˗(5). LabCorp is accredited by the AABB. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.503(a). The genetic testing results were in a record signed and notarized on December xx, 2018, by M4~, Ph.D., D-ABC on behalf of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, who attested to the truth and correctness of the results in the report under penalty of perjury. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.504(a). As documented in the background section of this legal opinion, aside from one illegible signature as to the exact name of the person who received A~’s specimen for testing at LabCorp, the attached two chain of custody documents establish the chain of custody requirements by showing: (1) the names and photographs of B~, K~, and A~; (2) the names of the individuals who collected each of the specimens; (3) the places and dates the specimens were collected; (4) the names of the individuals who received the specimens in LabCorp for testing (except that the signature of the person who received A~’s specimen for testing is illegible); and (5) the dates the specimens were received in LabCorp. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.504(b)(1)-(5). Because the paternal uncle DNA report alone is not determinative in this case, there is no need for the agency to contact B~ to obtain clarification on this illegible signature from the LabCorp employee on the chain of custody document as to A~’s specimen.

[10]

The clear and convincing evidence standard requires greater proof than the “preponderance” standard, but less proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal proceedings. Tipps v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 768 F. Supp. 577, 579 (S.D. Tex. 1990) (finding that DNA evidence taken together with other evidence presented during the trial provided clear and convincing evidence that the alleged father was not the child’s biological father).

[11]

POMS GN 00306.125(B)(1)(b) cautions SSA, “While you may mention blood/genetic tests as one type of additional evidence of paternity that SSA may consider, do not suggest that a blood/genetic test be performed or imply that one is required.”

[12]

We did not review a copy of K~'s birth certificate, so our conclusion that B~ did not identify the number holder as K~’s father on his birth certificate is based on B~'s statement. Moreover, while B~ provided a notice from SSA acknowledging her request for a social security card for “K~” this is not written evidence of paternity as B~ maintains.

[13]

B~ provided a W9 allegedly completed by the number holder for handwriting comparison. We have not made any judgment on whether the handwriting samples match.

[14]

The analysis in this opinion is consistent with a prior opinion addressing the clear and convincing standard in the context of paternity. See Memorandum from Regional Chief Counsel, Dallas, to Acting Director, Center for Programs Support, Dallas – Texas State Law –Child Relationship (NH B4~, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX) – REPLY (January 14, 2015).


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1501120048
PR 01120.048 - Texas - 03/10/2020
Batch run: 03/10/2020
Rev:03/10/2020