The claimants, Kineti and Mineseta T~ presently are receiving child's insurance benefits
on the account of their deceased adoptive father, Tufi T~. The children were adopted
by Mr. T~ in 1975 by means of matai registration, pursuant to former section 701-703
of Title 17 of American Samoa Code ("A.S.C.") [1] A second application for child's benefits for Keneti and Mineseta has now been filed
on the account of Mr. T~ widow, Leemo T~. Mrs. T~ is a recipient of retirement insurance
benefits. The children and Mrs. T~ are domiciliaries of American Samoa. You have asked
for our opinion as to whether or not Keneti and Mineseta became the adopted children
of Mrs. T~ as a result of the matai adoptions.
AS explained in our opinion re Faatma L~, January 30 1970, prior to April 1976, American
Samoa recognized two forms of adoption: (1) adoption by judicial proceedings, and
(2) adoption by registration by matai, the means under consideration here. A.S.C.,
Title 17, §§601-703. "Matai" is the designation of a traditional Samoan rank or status,
recognized by the laws of American Samoa. See A.S.C., Title 1, §§700-804. The procedures for effecting a matai adoption are set
out at A.S.C., Title 17, former sections 701 and 702. Significantly, it appears that
this type of adoption may be accomplished unilaterally by the matai, without the participation
or consent of his spouse. Compare A.S.C., Title 17, §652(a) (requiring the spouse
to join in a petition to adopt in judicial proceedings). Moreover, A.S.C., Title 17,
section 602, the provision specifying the legal relation- ship between all adoptees
and adoptive parents, gives no indication that any rights or responsibilities as between
an adoptee and the spouse of an adopting matai are created by matai adoption.
In this case, petitions by Mr. T~ a certified matai, to adopt Keneti and Mineseta
by matai registration were duly registered on July 3, 1975. Mrs. T~ did not join in
these petitions, nor is she referred to anywhere therein. Thus, in our opinion, Mrs.
T~ was not and, indeed, could not have been a party to these matai adoptions. As she
candidly acknowledged in her December 4, 1984 statement to SSA, "I was not and am
not a matai (chief). Keneti and Mineseta were adopted through the matai adoption and
only a matai can adopt the children in a matai adoption method." The adoptions did
not establish a parent and child relation- ship between Mrs. T~ and Kineti and Mineseta,
nor did they invest. the children with rights of inheritance from Mrs. T~