QUESTION PRESENTED
You asked whether J1~ (Claimant and natural mother of the deceased number holder (NH))
could be entitled to parent’s insurance benefits as a parent of K~ (deceased NH) under
Title II of the Social Security Act (Act). Specifically, you asked whether Claimant
meets the definition of a parent under the Act and whether she could inherit from
the NH under Oklahoma intestacy law.
ANSWER
We believe that an Oklahoma court would find that at the time of the NH’s death on
November XX, 2018, Claimant would be eligible to inherit from the NH as her parent
under Oklahoma intestate succession law based on their mother-child relationship.
Therefore, the agency may reasonably conclude that Claimant is the NH’s parent for
purposes of determining her entitlement to parent’s insurance benefits on the NH’s
record under Title II of the Act.
BACKGROUND You advised that the NH passed away on November XX, 2018, while domiciled in Oklahoma,
and that she died intestate. She was survived by her spouse and child. You advised
that the Social Security Administration (agency or SSA) is currently paying the surviving
child insurance benefits on the NH’s record as a disabled adult child. On March XX,
2019, Claimant filed a claim with the agency for parent’s insurance benefits on the
NH’s record. Claimant alleged that the NH was providing her with one-half support
prior to her death.[1]
An agency employee noted on a June XX, 2020 Modernized Claim System (MCS) remarks
screen [2] that the NH and her spouse lived in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma at the time of her death,
and Claimant was living with her two granddaughters. The agency employee further noted
that the NH’s obituary listed her survivors as her husband, son, mother (Claimant),
and brothers and sisters.[3] Additionally, in this MCS remarks screen, the agency employee noted that Claimant’s
“dependency point=at the time of death= 11/2017-10/2018,” and listed Claimant’s income
during this period, the NH’s income in 2017 and 2018, and the “total income during
this timeframe” (November 2017-October 2018).
In the agency’s Notice of Disapproved Claim dated June XX, 2020, the agency informed
Claimant that she did not qualify for parent’s benefits. The Notice stated: In order
to be entitled to parent benefits, you must be the natural parent of the worker and
entitled to a share as a parent in the distribution of the worker’s intestate personal
property under the laws of the State of the worker’s last domicile. You are the natural
parent of [the NH] but you are not entitled to a distribution of her personal property
under the laws of Oklahoma. [The NH] did not have a will at the time of her death
and survivors included a spouse and child. According to Oklahoma law the spouse and
children would split the estate.
On July XX, 2020, Claimant filed a request for reconsideration of the denial of parent’s
benefits. Claimant explained her reasoning: “There is no manual reference regarding
social security using intestate as a reason for denial. There is nothing online through
social security mentioning intestate. Form SSA-7[4] Also doesn’t include intestate information. The only thing mentioned is ½ of support
prior one year.”
ANALYSIS
A. Federal Law: Entitlement to Parent’s Insurance Benefits under the Social Security
Act as a Parent of an Insured Deceased Number Holder
Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to parent’s insurance benefits
on a fully insured deceased individual’s record if, among other things,[5] the claimant is the insured individual’s parent. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(h)(1), (3);
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.370(a), 404.374; POMS RS 00209.001. For Title II parent’s insurance benefits, a claimant establishes a parent relationship
to an insured individual if: (a) the claimant is the mother or father of the insured
and would be considered his or her parent under the intestate succession laws of the
State where the insured had a permanent home (domicile) when he or she died; (b) the
claimant is the adoptive parent of the insured and legally adopted him or her before
the insured person became 16 years old; or (c) the claimant is the stepparent of the
insured and the claimant validly married the insured’s parent or adoptive parent before
the insured became 16 years old.
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(h)(3), 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.374; POMS RS 00209.001(C).
Here, there is no claim that Claimant is the adoptive parent or stepparent. Thus,
we consider whether Claimant is the NH’s mother and would be considered her parent
under the intestate succession laws of the State where the NH had her permanent home
when she died. You advised that the NH was domiciled in Oklahoma at the time of her
death. We therefore look to Oklahoma intestacy law to determine whether Claimant has
a parent-child relationship with the NH for purposes of determining her entitlement
to parent’s benefits on the NH’s record.
Before turning to Oklahoma law, we note that the agency’s June XX, 2020 Notice of
Disapproved Claim informed Claimant that although she is the NH’s natural parent,
she did not qualify for parent’s benefits on the NH’s record because she was not entitled
to a distribution of the NH’s intestate personal property under Oklahoma law. The
Notice stated that the NH’s survivors included a spouse and child and that according
to Oklahoma intestate law, the spouse and child would split the NH’s estate (leaving
nothing for inheritance for the surviving parent, Claimant).
However, we clarify that Social Security law does not require the agency to determine
whether a claimant would actually inherit a share of the insured’s estate under State
intestate succession law based on the presence of other eligible heirs/descendants,
the lack of a will, the insured’s ownership of property subject to intestacy laws,
and compliance with all other requirements for intestate inheritance (including time
limitations on filing claims in State court); rather, the agency uses State intestacy
laws as a standard test for determining family relationships by considering who would
have eligibility to inherit under State intestacy law. See Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S.
541, 556 (2012) (describing the natural child standard as an “eligibility to inherit
under state intestacy law” standard and noting that “requiring all ‘child’ applicants
to qualify under state intestacy law installed a simple test, one that ensured benefits
for persons plainly within the legislators’ contemplation, while avoiding congressional
entanglement in the traditional state-law realm of family relations”). In other words,
the agency’s focus is on how State intestate succession law defines that family relationship
for eligibility for inheritance and not upon actual inheritance. See 42 U.S.C. §§
416(h)(1)(A)(ii), (h)(2)(A) (agency looks to State intestacy law to determine whether
claimants “have the same status” with respect to taking of property as a wife, husband,
widow, widower, child, or parent of the insured.); see also Cotlong v. Harris, 634
F.2d 890, 893 (5th Cir. 1981) (the claimant was deemed a dependent child for purposes
of child’s insurance benefits since, “irrespective of whether she would actually inherit
property,” she fell within a class entitled under State law to inherit from the insured
in the event the insured died intestate); King v. Califano, 484 F. Supp. 861, 864-65
(M.D. La. 1980) (applicant’s status as a child for purposes of Social Security benefits
on her father’s record was not “contingent upon whether her father left surviving
brothers and sisters,” noting that “we do not construe the Social Security Act as
requiring actual inheritance”).
To further explain, we note that even in situations where an insured individual is
still living and thus no one stands to actually inherit under intestate succession
law (for child’s benefits, for example), or when the insured individual dies with
a will such that intestacy laws are inapplicable, or when the insured individual dies
without any property that would be subject to intestacy laws, the agency still applies
State intestate succession laws to determine if a claimant has the necessary family
relationship with the insured individual for purposes of determining entitlement to
Social Security auxiliary benefits. See U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A), (2)(A) (when insured
individual is alive, the agency determines family status by looking at intestacy laws
of State where insured individual was domiciled at the time applicant files application);
Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. at 545 (applying State intestacy law to determine whether
applicants would be entitled to benefits on insured individual’s record as his children,
even though insured individual died with a will). As another example, the agency will
apply State intestate succession law to determine a parent-child relationship even
if the child would not actually inherit under State law because the child’s claim
against the insured’s estate was untimely. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(b)(2) (the agency
will not apply any State inheritance law requirement that an action to establish paternity
must be taken within a specified period of time measured from the worker’s death or
the child’s birth, or that an action to establish paternity must have been started
or completed before the worker’s death).
In summary, a claimant does not have to establish actual inheritance of a share in
a deceased individual’s estate under the intestate succession law. Instead, in claims
for auxiliary benefits, like Claimant’s application for parent’s benefits, the claimant
must establish the requisite family relationship that would make the claimant eligible
to inherit as the insured individual’s spouse, widow(er), child, or parent under State
intestate succession law. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii), (2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.345,
404.355(a)(1), 404.374(a). Therefore, the fact that the NH is survived by a child
and spouse such that Claimant would have no actual right to a share in the NH’s estate
under Oklahoma intestate succession laws does not extinguish her right to seek Title
II parent’s benefits on the NH’s record as her parent.
We now turn to Oklahoma intestate succession law to determine if Claimant has established
the requisite family relationship with the NH for eligibility for inheritance.
B. State Law: Right of Inheritance as a Parent under Oklahoma Intestate Succession
Law
As established above, Oklahoma law controls on the issue of intestate succession because
the NH was domiciled in Oklahoma when she died. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.374(a); POMS RS 00209.001(C). According to Oklahoma intestate succession law, the estate of an individual who
dies intestate descends and passes to her heirs, including her “parent or parents.”
See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §§ 212, 213(B). Thus, we must determine whether Claimant
was eligible to inherit as a parent under Oklahoma intestate succession law.
Oklahoma has adopted the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA),[6] which applies to parental determinations in intestate and probate proceedings. See
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7700-101; In re Estate of Dicksion, 286 P.3d 283, 290
(Okla. 2012). The UPA governs every determination of parentage in Oklahoma. Okla.
Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7700-103(A). The UPA defines a “parent” as “an individual who
has established a parent-child relationship” under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7700-201.
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7700-102(13). Under the UPA, a mother-child relationship
is established between a woman and a child by: (1) the woman’s having given birth
to the child; (2) adoption of the child by the woman; or (3) as otherwise provided
by law. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7700-201(A).
Here, although not provided to us with this legal opinion request, it is our understanding
that the agency has evidence in the form of a birth certificate to establish that
Claimant gave birth to the NH. Both your legal opinion request and the agency’s June
XX, 2020 Notice of Disapproved Claim for parent’s benefits describe Claimant as the
deceased NH’s “natural parent.” The agency requires a copy of a public or religious
birth record made before age 5 to show that someone is a “natural parent” of an insured
individual. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.731. If this record shows the same last name for the
insured individual and the parent, the agency will accept it as convincing evidence
of the relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.731; see also POMS GN 00305.012(B)(2) (use the birth record as evidence that an individual is the child’s birth mother
and legal parent when the individual is named as the child’s birth mother and there
is no reason to question that the individual is the child’s birth mother and legal
parent). Thus, we assume that the agency has sufficient evidence (a birth record made
before age 5 showing Claimant and the NH with the same last name, or other convincing
evidence) to establish that Claimant is the NH’s legal parent and birth mother. Indeed,
it does not appear that anyone disputes that Claimant is the NH’s birth mother and
legal parent. We note that the NH’s online obituary identifies Claimant as her mother
and states that the NH was born to Claimant. The NH’s widower also provided a sworn
statement in which he described Claimant as the NH’s mother and his mother-in-law.
As such, we believe an Oklahoma court would find that Claimant has established a mother-child
relationship with the NH and is the NH’s “parent” under Oklahoma law for all purposes,
including intestate inheritance. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §§ 7700-102(13) (defining
“parent” as “an individual who has established a parent-child relationship”), 7700-103
(the UPA governs every determination of parentage in Oklahoma), 7700-201(A)(1) (mother-child
relationship is established if the woman gave birth to the child). Therefore, Claimant
could inherit from the NH as a parent under Oklahoma intestate succession law. See
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84 § 213(B) (estate of an individual who dies intestate descends
and passes to her heirs, including her “parent or parents”); see also POMS GN 00306.012(A) (the agency “generally presume[s] that a child would inherit as the NH’s child
from the child’s birth mother if the birth mother were to die intestate in all States,
unless the evidence provides a reason to question the presumption”).
CONCLUSION
We believe that an Oklahoma court would find that Claimant would be eligible to inherit
from the NH as her parent under Oklahoma intestate succession law based on their mother-child
relationship. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(h)(3), 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.370(a), 404.374.
Therefore, the agency may reasonably conclude that Claimant is the NH’s parent for
purposes of determining her entitlement to parent’s insurance benefits on the NH’s
record under Title II of the Act.