QUESTION PRESENTED
On April 25, 2014, you asked whether a subsequent adoption of an entitled child is
a terminating event. Alana (Alana) currently receives child’s benefits as the number
holder Jason’s (the NH’s) adopted child based on an August 2011 Florida adoption.
In August 2013, Matthew and Priscilla (the R~) obtained an Arkansas adoption decree
adopting Alana. You have asked whether the R~s’ 2013 adoption of Alana terminates
Alana’s entitlement to child’s benefits on the NH’s record.
ANSWER
No. Under the Social Security Act (the Act), the only terminating event for an entitled
adopted child is an annulment of the adoption. We found no legal basis under either
Arkansas or Florida law to find that the R~s’ subsequent adoption of Alana annulled
the NH’s prior Florida adoption of Alana upon which her entitlement to benefits on
the NH’s record was based.
BACKGROUND
The agency’s Numident record for Alana shows that she was born in Florida on June,
to Shawna and Aaron, and that her birth name was April. Although we are unaware of
the evidence submitted to make the changes, Alana’s Numident record shows that in
2011 the agency changed her name from April to Alana and changed her parents from
Shawna and Aaron to April and the NH. It also shows that in 2013 the agency again
changed Alana’s name from Alana Faye to Alana and changed her parents from April Cotton
and the NH to Priscilla and Matthew.
According to the information provided, in August 2010, the NH began receiving Title
II disability insurance benefits. A Florida Circuit Court Final Judgment of Adoption
in the case of In re: The Adoption of April W~, Case No. 11-6126, (Florida adoption decree) shows that the NH and his wife, April
(listed as April on Alana’s Numident record), adopted Alana on August 12, 2011, in
Broward County, Florida. The Florida adoption decree changed Alana’s name to Alana
Faye, terminated all legal relationships between Alana and her birth parents, and
created a legal relationship between Alana and the NH and his wife that entitled Alana
to all rights and privileges as a child born to the NH and his wife. Alana is currently
receiving child’s benefits on the NH’s account as the NH’s adopted child.
An Arkansas Circuit Court Decree of Adoption in the case of In the Matter of the Adoption of Alana F. R~ (Arkansas adoption decree) shows that on August 9, 2013, the R~ adopted Alana in
Montgomery County, Arkansas. The Arkansas adoption decree states that the “child’s
parents have properly executed their consents to these proceedings and to the adoption
herein,” and that the “child has also executed her consent. [1] Although the Arkansas adoption decree does not identify the NH or his wife by name,
it identifies “Alana” as the child the R~s adopted [2] The Arkansas adoption decree states that adoption was in Alana’s best interest, changed
Alana’s last name from W~ to R~, terminated the rights and duties of Alana’s birth
parents, declared that Alana was the R~s’ child “for all legal intents and purposes,”
and vested the R~s with “every legal right, privilege, and obligation as [Alana’s
parents].” The Arkansas adoption decree also ordered a “substituted birth certificate”
be issued reflecting the R~s as Alana’s parents. The Arkansas adoption decree makes
no reference to the NH’s and his wife’s prior adoption of Alana in Florida.
On April 1, 2014, the NH’s attorney delivered a letter to the agency’s Searcy, Arkansas
office stating that, pursuant to Arkansas statute ACA Section 9-9-215, which is a
part of Arkansas’ Revised Uniform Adoption Act, “when the R~s adopted Alana that adoption
decree terminated all parental rights and obligations of the W~ (the NH) as to Alana.”
ANALYSIS
The Act provides that a number holder’s adopted child may be eligible for benefits
on the number holder’s account if the number holder legally adopted the child. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(d), 416(e)(1), see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.350(a)(1), 404.354, 404.356. In this case, in August 2011, Alana
became entitled to child’s benefits on the NH’s account as the NH’s legally adopted
child and continues to receive benefits. Once the agency awards child’s benefits,
there are limited circumstances under which the agency can terminate those benefits.
See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1)(D)-(H); 20 C.F.R. § 404.352(b)-(e); Program Operations Manual
System (POMS) RS 00203.035. The issue presented in this case is whether the R~s’ subsequent adoption of Alana
in Arkansas in 2013 is a terminating event for Alana’s entitlement to child’s benefits
on the NH’s account.
Section 202(d) of the Act provides that a child’s entitlement to benefits will terminate
upon the child’s death; when the child attains age 18 (if the child is not disabled
or a full-time student where different rules apply for termination); when the child
marries (with certain exceptions); when the number holder is no longer entitled to
a disability insurance benefit (unless entitlement ends because of the number holder’s
death or entitlement to retirement insurance benefits); and if the child is entitled
to benefits as the number holder’s stepchild, when the child’s parent and the number
holder stepparent divorce. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1)(D)-(H); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.352(b)-(e).
Prior to 1972, Section 202(d) of the Act contained a provision that made a subsequent
adoption of a child entitled to benefits as the number holder’s adopted child a terminating
event. An adopted child’s entitlement to benefits ended if he or she was subsequently
adopted unless the subsequent adoption was by: (1) the child’s natural parent, (2)
the child’s natural parent’s spouse jointly with the natural parent, (3) the number
holder (e.g., a stepparent) on whose earnings the child was receiving benefits, or
(4) a stepparent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, or sister after the death of
the number holder on whose earnings the child is receiving benefits. However, Section
118 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-603, amended section
202(d) of the Act to eliminate the provision that made subsequent adoptions of a child
a terminating event. The 1972 amendments provided for the continuation of the payment
of benefits to an entitled child who is subsequently adopted, regardless of who adopts
the child. Social Security Amendments of 1972, H.R.1, as reported by the House Ways
and Means Committee, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1972).
Through Social Security Ruling (SSR) 91-6, 1991 WL 208066 (S.S.A. 1991), the agency
reiterated the Act’s removal of subsequent adoption as a terminating event for a child
receiving benefits as a number holder’s adopted child, and opined that an annulment
of the number holder’s adoption is the only terminating event. SSR 91-6 states that
“[u]nder [the Act], the adoption of a claimant already entitled to child’s insurance
benefits on the earnings record of an individual who previously adopted the claimant
does not terminate the claimant’s entitlement to those benefits unless the second
adoption revokes the original adoption.” [3] SSR 91-6 further explains that an adopted child’s entitlement to benefits is terminated
if the number holder’s adoption is annulled because with an annulment, the adoption
is “invalidated and determined never to have legally existed.” SSR 91-6, 1991 WL 208066,
at *2. In addition, POMS RS 00203.035(B)(3) provides only one ground for terminating a legally adopted child’s benefits
- an annulment of the adoption. [4] An annulment is a specific court act that denotes more than the termination of a
certain legal status; it renders the legal status invalid from the time that the legal
status purportedly commenced, as if the legal event never took place. See Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), “annulment.” Generally, the annulment or abrogation
of an adoption is an action an adoptive parent brings to terminate the parent–child
relationship by annulment of the decree of adoption. See Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), “annulment of adoption” (referencing “abrogation
of adoption”). An adoption may be nullified if it resulted from fraud, misrepresentation,
or undue influence, or if nullification is in the child's best interests. Id. Therefore, we examine Arkansas and Florida law, as well as the evidence provided,
to determine whether the R~s’ adoption of Alana in Arkansas in 2013 constituted an
annulment of the NH’s adoption of Alana in Florida in 2011.
We found no basis under Arkansas or Florida law to find that the R~s’ adoption of
Alana in Arkansas annulled the NH’s prior adoption of Alana in Florida. Under Florida
law, which governs the NH’s adoption of Alana entered by the Florida court, “an action
or proceeding of any kind to vacate, set aside, or otherwise nullify a judgment of
adoption or an underlying judgment terminating parental rights on any ground may not
be filed more than 1 year after entry of the judgment terminating parental rights.”
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 63.182; see also Martin v. Adoption of L.M.D., 64 So.3d 758, 759 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (Florida’s statute of repose for adoptions
strictly limits motions to vacate adoption orders based on any ground, including fraud,
to one year.). Therefore, in order for the NH’s and his wife’s August 12, 2011 Florida
adoption of Alana to be annulled, an action to annul the adoption must have been filed
on or before August 13, 2012. [5] The evidence provided does not show that anyone initiated any action or proceeding,
in Florida or Arkansas, to vacate, set aside or nullify the NH’s and his wife’s adoption
of Alana, or that any court entered an order vacating, setting aside or nullifying
the NH’s and his wife’s adoption of Alana. Specifically, the evidence provided does
not show that the NH and his wife filed an action to invalidate their Florida adoption
of Alana within the one year time period allowed under Florida law. The Arkansas court
entered the Arkansas adoption decree on August 9, 2013, well beyond the one-year time
period. The Arkansas adoption decree does not indicate that it annulled, vacated,
set aside, or otherwise nullified the NH’s and his wife’s prior adoption of Alana.
Therefore, we have no legal or factual basis to find that the R~s’ adoption of Alana
annulled the NH’s prior adoption of Alana. As a result, no grounds exist to terminate
Alana’s continued entitlement to child’s benefits on the NH’s account. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.356; SSR 91-6; POMS RS 00203.035(B)(3).
CONCLUSION
Because an annulment of the adoption is the only terminating event for an entitled
adopted child, and we have no evidence that the NH’s adoption of Alana was annulled
within the one year limitations period under State law, the agency has no grounds
to terminate Alana’s entitlement to benefits on the NH’s account, under current law
or agency policy.
Michael McGaughran
Regional Chief Counsel
By: ________
Aminah M. Collick
Assistant Regional Counsel