TN 7 (01-11)
PR 01510.053 Washington
A. PR 11–043 Validity of an Equitable Adoption – Washington State
DATE: April 23, 2010
The State Washington does not recognize the doctrine of equitable adoption as a theory of inheritance under intestacy laws. In Washington it is well established that the adoption of an heir is purely statutory, and can be accomplished only by strict compliance with statute. There must be a formal court order for there to be a lawful adoption. The Washington law determines whether R.J. is entitled to child’s benefits and whether Mrs. J., in turn, is entitled to mother’s benefits. In this case, the child is not entitled to child benefits as the equitably adopted child of Mr. J. and Mrs. J. is not entitled to mother’s benefits.
Whether the great-niece of an insured individual is his “equitably adopted child” for purposes of determining her eligibility for child’s benefits and whether the insured individual’s wife is eligible for mother’s benefits.
No. Because Washington does not recognize the doctrine of equitable adoption, the insured individual’s great-niece is not eligible for benefits as the insured individual’s equitably adopted child and the insured individual’s wife is not eligible for mother’s benefits.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
R.J. was born in 2002, in Multnomah County, Oregon, to S. and B. However, she was released from the hospital and into the custody of her great-aunt, Mrs. J. In 2003, Mrs. J. and her husband, Mr. J., filed a Petition for Adoption in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon. Attached thereto were an adoption agreement and other pleadings wherein the child’s natural parents surrendered, released, and relinquished their parental rights. Mr. and Mrs. J. never completed the adoption process, however, and in 2004, moved to the State of Washington.
Despite never completing the adoption, it appears that R.J. has lived with Mr. and Mrs. J. her entire life and was raised as their daughter. A copy of her baptism certificate names Mr. and Mrs. J. as her parents. Medical coupons were issues to Mr. J. for the intended use of R.J. Letters from the natural parents indicate that Mr. and Mrs. J. raised R.J. as a daughter and they intended for Mr. and Mrs. J. to adopt their daughter.
Applications are pending for child’s benefits and mother’s benefits based on the earnings record of Mr. J., who died in July 2009.
The entitlement requirements for child’s benefits and mother’s benefits on the record of an insured person who has died are interconnected. To be entitled to mother’s benefits, the mother must have in her care “the insured’s child who is entitled to child’s benefits.” 20 C.F.R. 404.339. To be entitled to child’s benefits, the claimant must be the insured person’s “child.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.350. One of several ways to be related to the insured and be entitled to benefits as his or her “child” is to be the insured person’s “equitably adopted child.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.354. A claimant may be eligible for benefits as an equitably adopted child if (1) the insured had agreed to adopt the claimant; (2) the adoption did not occur; and (3) the agreement to adopt is recognized under state law so that the claimant would be able to inherit a child’s share of the insured’s personal property if the insured died without leaving a will. 20 C.F.R. § 404.359. To determine whether a claimant is eligible for benefits as an equitably adopted child, the Commissioner follows the law of the state where the insured had his permanent home at the time of his death. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.359.
In this case, Mr. J. began the adoption process in Oregon
but was living in Washington when he died. Therefore, Washington law determines whether R.J. is entitled to child’s benefits and whether Mrs. J., in turn, is entitled to mother’s benefits.
The doctrine of equitable adoption – also known as virtual adoption, de facto adoption, and adoption by estoppels – is a judicially created remedy where the court grants a person the rights of an adopted child for purposes of inheritance. Contrary to POMS GN 00306.225B, there are no instances of a Washington court recognizing the doctrine of equitable adoption. See In re Marriage of Thier, 841 P.2d 794, 799 n.5 (Wash. App. 1992) (observing that “no Washington cases recognize a doctrine of de facto adoption”). In fact, in Washington it is well established that the adoption of an heir is purely statutory, and can be accomplished only by strict compliance with statute. In re Smith’s Estate, 299 P.2d 550, 553 (Wash. 1956) (citing In re Renton’s Estate, 39 P. 145, 148 (Wash. 1895)). There must be a formal court order for there to be a lawful adoption. Fields v. Fields, 243 P. 369, 371 (Wash. 1926). Because Washington has not recognized the doctrine of equitable adoption, R.J. is not entitled to benefits as Mr. J.’s equitably adopted child and Mrs. J. is not en