This memorandum is in response to your question as to whether SSA should recognize
a Liberian adoption or equitable adoption of--and consequently award survivor benefits
to--Bill W~, Claim Number ~, and Tetee (or “Tete”) W~, ~, based on the earnings record
of their alleged adoptive parent, Henry A~. Henry A~’s surviving spouse, Lisa S~,
has applied for benefits on the children’s behalf. We recommend that SSA decline to
recognize Bill and Tetee W~ as the children of Henry A~ because Lisa S~ has not submitted
sufficient information to establish the validity of the adoption under Nigerian law
and the prerequisites for equitable adoption have not been satisfied.
The complete background facts are adequately set forth in your June 22, 2009, memorandum
(attached). Briefly, on June 27, 2006, at 5:40 a.m., Lisa S~ wrote an email to “Sister
Pam” of the West African Children Support Network (“WACSN”), offering to wire funds
to facilitate the adoption of “Bill W~ & a 2 to 3 year old girl.” On June 27, 2006,
at 9:02 a.m., Lisa S~ sent personal information pertaining to herself and Henry A~
in support of their request to adopt a seven year-old boy and two-to-three year-old
girl. On June 27, 2006, at 9:15 a.m., Lisa S~ received a reply email, apparently from
WACSN, directing her to wire “adoption funds” to “John G. L~.” The email also indicated
that “Bill” would be placed “on hold for 48 hours” in anticipation of the receipt
of the requested funds, but the identity of the girl was not specified. On June 28,
2006, Henry A~ and Lisa S~ signed an authorization for $12,010.00 to be wired from
A~’s investment account to an account of John G. L~. Liberian adoption paperwork,
the validity of which is in question, indicates that custody of Bill and Tetee W~
was awarded to Lisa S~ and Henry A~ on July 5, 2006. Henry A~ passed away on July
15, 2006, in the United States, prior to meeting either Bill or Tetee W~. Bill and
Tetee W~ were issued IR-4 immigrant visas to permit entry into the United States on
January 5, 2007. On July 12, 2007, Lisa S~ filed an application for surviving child’s
benefits for Bill and Tetee W~, based on the earnings record of Henry A~. A few additional,
salient facts are provided in the body of our response.
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(1), a child is entitled to benefits if he or she
qualifies as “the insured person’s child, based on a relationship described in §§
404.355 through 404.359.” Meanwhile, 20 C.F.R. § 404.356 prescribes the criteria for
recognition of legal adoptions. Under § 404.356, SSA recognizes legal adoptions where
a child was (a) legally adopted by the insured or, on some occasions, (b) legally
adopted by the surviving spouse. To ascertain whether a legal adoption took place,
SSA “appl[ies] the adoption laws of the State or foreign country where the adoption
took place, not the State inheritance laws [where the insured resided when he or she
As you mentioned, GN 00306.155, entitled Evidence of Legal Adoption, provides that SSA may recognize the validity
of a foreign adoption if the child was admitted to the United States under an IR-2
or IR-3 classification code. GN 00306.155(E). Alternatively, we may find that an adoption occurred where “there is no available
evidence which raises questions about the validity of either the child’s adoption
decree or immigrant visa . . . if we obtain the original foreign adoption papers plus
evidence of one of the following:
A Certificate of Citizenship issued by the [Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)], or
A Certificate of Naturalization issued by DHS, USCIS, or
A valid United States passport, or
A valid permanent resident card, I-551 (Alien Registration Receipt Card) issued by
DHS, USCIS, including an IR3 or IR2 immigrant classification code, or
A machine readable immigration visa with temporary I-551 annotation, an IR3 or IR2
immigrant classification code, and a U.S. immigration stamp.”
GN 00306.155(E). You submitted this matter for a precedent opinion pursuant to GN 00306.155(E) because Lisa S~, the surviving spouse of Henry A~ who is now requesting benefits
on behalf of the children, cannot produce any of these documents, other than the Liberian
OGC also notes that another party has challenged the validity of the Liberian adoption
due to the absence of the Henry A~’s and Lisa S~’s signatures on the adoption paperwork.
OGC has previously opined, in PR 01325.208 Liberia (Jan. 14, 2002), that “[t]he issuance of an IR-2 or IR-3 visa to a child
adopted in Liberia is proof that the Department of Homeland Security-United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State have determined that
adoption to be valid according to the laws of that country,” and that it is unnecessary
to determine whether the State of residence would recognize the adoption as valid.
Here, of course, neither an IR-2 or IR-3 visa was issued. Nevertheless, PR 01325.208 merely establishes the sufficiency of an IR-2 or IR-3 visa to establish a legal adoption;
nothing in the opinion necessarily precludes SSA’s recognition of an adoption on a
Moreover, the issuance of an IR-4 visa does not conclusively negate, or even evidence,
the legality of the foreign adoption. An IR-2 visa is issued to a child of a U.S.
citizen born in wedlock, legitimated prior to age 16, or adopted by and in the custody
of a parent with whom the child has resided for at least two years. An IR-3 visa is
issued to an orphan adopted abroad where (1) the adoption is recognized as legal and
(2) any “U.S. citizen parents have seen the child prior to or during the adoption
proceedings.” See Betancourt Letter at 1. An IR-4 visa is issued to a child who is “to be” adopted
in the U.S. by a U.S. citizen. Specifically, an IR-4 visa is issued when one of the
two IR-3 visa conditions have not been satisfied, i.e., when the foreign adoption cannot be confirmed as entirely valid or when either U.S.
citizen parent did not see the child prior to or during the adoption process. See id. at 1.
Thus, it is possible that the Liberian adoption is legally valid, but DHS nevertheless
issued an IR-4 visa solely because neither Henry A~ nor Lisa S~ saw the children prior
to adoption. On the other hand, it is also plausible that DHS did not consider the
Liberian adoption valid. Consequently, resolution of your first question depends upon
whether we have sufficient evidence to ascertain the validity of the adoption under
Given the dearth of readily available legal materials regarding Liberian adoption,
we contacted the Law Library of Congress to obtain a legal opinion and ascertain the
controlling legal criteria. In response, we received the attached letter from Hanibal
M. G~ (“G~ letter”), a foreign law specialist at the Law Library of Congress, expressing
his opinion on the adoption in question. Mr. G~ also sent to us a copy of the relevant
Liberian adoption law, DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW, III LIBERIAN CODES REV. TIT. 9, CH.
4(C) (1998), which we have likewise appended.
Mr. G~ advised us that the papers submitted by Lisa S~ do not satisfy the prerequisites
for a valid adoption under Liberian law. Specifically, Mr. G~ first pointed out that
the adoption petition does not, as required, “contain the place of marriage, date
of marriage[,] and place of residence of the applicants.” See G~ letter at 2. Second, the petition does not elaborate how the applicants “acquired
custody of the children in question.” Id. Third, the adoption papers do not include proof of the mother’s death and, additionally,
fail to substantiate that the father had the right to consent to the adoption. Ordinarily,
under Liberian law, the mother of children born out of wedlock must consent to adoption.
Moreover, while we redacted information regarding the children’s birth dates, making
it unclear to Mr. G~ whether parental consent was required, the children were both
minors at the time of the adoption, rendering effective consent necessary. Id. at 2-3. Fourth, Mr. G~ noted that “the documents do not contain any reference to
a [legally mandated] investigation by the court.” Id. at 3. Fifth, the adoption documents should have been sealed, and it is unclear whether
a court ordered disclosure. Id. Sixth and finally, the documents in question bear the same date, July 5, 2006, despite
the fact that an adoption process in Liberia would ordinarily be completed over a
more extensive period of time. Id. Reinforcing this concern, there is no evidence that an expedited process for adoption
exists in Liberia. Id. at 3-4.
Based on Mr. G~’s letter and our review of the applicable law, we conclude that Lisa
S~ has not adduced sufficient evidence of legal adoption under Liberian law. With
the exception of the residence of the applicants and the ages of the children, which
we redacted from the material submitted to the Law Library of Congress, Mr. G~’s concerns
appear well-founded. Buttressing the cautionary flags raised by Mr. G~, we observe
that the U.S. State Department has issued a notice revealing that the Liberian government
has “suspended adoption services provided by the . . . West African Children Support
Network,” the very agency involved in this adoption. See U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Children’s Issues,
Government of Liberia Suspends Intercountry Adoptions (Jan. 27, 2009), available at http://adoption.state.gov/news/liberia.html .
You also asked us to consider whether we should recognize an equitable adoption (sometimes
called adoption by estoppel) in this case. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.359, an individual
“may be eligible for benefits as an equitably adopted child if the insured had agreed
to adopt [the individual] but the adoption did not occur.” In such circumstances,
we look to whether state law would recognize the adoption for inheritance purposes.
Id. Here, that state would be Vermont, the state where Henry A~ was domiciled at the
time of his death. Id.
A review of the Vermont code reveals that the legislature has not spoken regarding
the doctrine of equitable adoption. See generally R. B. D~, Status or Contract? A Comparative Analysis of Inheritance Rights Under Equitable
Adoption and Domestic Partnership Doctrines, 38 GA. L. REV. 675, 681 (Winter 2005) (claiming that, in fact, no state has passed
such a law). The Supreme Court of Vermont has seemingly never officially endorsed
the doctrine of equitable adoption, though it has arguably suggested that it might
do so in an appropriate case. See Titchenal v. Dexter, 693 A.2d 682, 689 (Vt. 1997) (citing Whitchurch v. Perry, 408 A.2d 627, 631 (Vt. 1979)). A firm but not overwhelming majority of state courts
that have considered the issue have recognized the doctrine. See Drake, supra, at 681.
Thus, it is not entirely clear whether, under Vermont law, equitable adoption is even
available in the abstract. Nevertheless, we need not hazard a guess as to the future
course of state law, because it is unlikely that Vermont courts would find an equitable
adoption in this case, assuming arguendo that the doctrine is viable in the state. In summarizing the relevant principles,
the Vermont Supreme Court has stated:
Courts generally apply the doctrine of equitable adoption in cases of intestate succession
to permit participation in the estate by a foster child who was never legally, i.e.,
statutorily, adopted by the decedent. Typically, the decedent obtained custody by
expressly or implicitly promising the child, the child’s natural parents, or someone
in loco parentis that an adoption would occur. Custody is transferred and the child lives with the
foster parent as would a natural child, but, for one reason or another (usually the
promisor’s neglect), an adoption never occurs. Upon the foster parent’s death, a court,
applying the maxim that ‘equity regards that as done which ought to be done,’ declares
that the child is entitled to share in the state as if he were a legally adopted child.
Titchenal, 693 A.2d at 683-84 (quoting Whitchurch, 408 A.2d at 631) (emphasis removed); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROP.: WILLS & OTHER DONATIVE TRANSFERS § 2.5, n. 7, cmt.
k (1999) (delineating doctrine in similar fashion).
It is uncontested that Henry A~ never obtained physical custody of the children and
that neither child ever resided with him. Indeed, Henry A~’s intent to adopt the W~
children is less than explicit. At best, there is evidence that Henry A~ intended
to finance the adoption of children by paying $12,010.00 from his investment account
to an individual supposedly associated with WACSN. Nevertheless, the pertinent evidence
does not designate Bill and Tetee W~ exclusively as the children that Henry A~ wished to adopt.
Henry A~ signed a wire transfer authorization form on June 28, 2006, but email correspondence
from an apparent WACSN agent to Lisa S~, dated June 27, 2006, establishes that Bill
W~ was only “on hold” and that WACSN had not yet selected a girl for the adoption.
Henry A~ had, of course, never met Bill or Tetee W~. Indeed, the adoption processing
had not yet begun. Moreover, the correspondence with WACSN was seemingly authored
by Lisa S~, not Henry A~ (for example, June 27, 2006, correspondence from WACSN was
sent to “Lisa S~” at the email address ~, in reply to an email sent from that address,
which was electronically signed by “Lisa S~ & Family”). The purported Liberian adoption
itself, of course, did not take place until July 5, 2006. Finally, the $12,010.00
should be construed as an adoption fee to WASCN, as it does not seem to have been
intended to support Bill and Tetee W~, directly.
We emphasize four points: (1) Henry A~ never resided with nor had physical custody
of either Bill or Tetee W~; (2) Henry A~ never completed nor signed any form authenticating
his desire to adopt Bill or Tetee W~; (3) the funds in question were an adoption fee,
not specifically directed toward the support of Bill or Tetee W~; and (4) when the
funds were wired, Tetee W~ had not even been selected as a subject of the adoption.
In contrast, the only real evidence that Henry A~ wished to adopt the children is
his willingness to part with the $12,010.00 adoption fee, at a time when Bill W~,
at least, had been selected as a candidate for adoption.
In summary, we do not believe that SSA should recognize an equitable doctrine under
Vermont law. Initially, it is uncertain whether the doctrine is even available under
Vermont law. Assuming that it is, however, the facts adduced in the file militate,
on balance, against application of the doctrine in this case. There is certainly no
course of conduct in this situation that would compel a court sitting in equity to
exercise its authority in favor of recognizing an adoption.
Finally, I note that 20 C.F.R. § 404.356 leaves open the possibility that Lisa S~
could, at some point in the future, legally adopt Bill and Tetee W~, rendering them
eligible for benefits based on Henry A~’s record. As this event has not yet taken
place, at least to our knowledge, this option remains theoretical at this time.