TN 56 (06-22)

PR 05005.010 District of Columbia

A. PR 22-036NY-DC Opposite-Sex Domestic Partnership - Mother's Benefits

Date: June 9, 2022

1. Syllabus

The number holder (NH) was domiciled in New York when he died. The New York law applies to determine whether the Claimant is the NH’s widow based on the couple’s District of Columbia (D.C.) domestic partnership. Claimant and NH entered into a valid domestic partnership in 2008, in D.C. We believe that the New York courts would find that at the time of the NH’s death, the Claimant could inherit a spouse’s share under New York intestacy law based on her valid D.C. opposite-sex domestic partnership with the NH. There is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s widow for purposes of determining her entitlement to mother’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

2. Opinion

QUESTION PRESENTED

You asked whether S~ (Claimant) is the widow of the deceased number holder M~ (NH), as required for mother’s insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act), based on the opposite-sex domestic partnership that the couple entered into on March XX, 2008, in the District of Columbia (D.C.), where the NH was domiciled in New York when he died on January XX, 2015.

ANSWER

We believe that New York courts would find that at the time of the NH’s death on January XX, 2015, the Claimant could inherit a spouse’s share under New York intestacy law based on her valid D.C. opposite-sex domestic partnership with the NH. As such, there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s widow for purposes of determining her entitlement to mother’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

BACKGROUND[1]

Claimant and NH had a child in 2007. As evidenced by a Certificate of Domestic Partnership issued by the D.C. Department of Health, Claimant and NH entered into a valid domestic partnership on May XX, 2008, in D.C.

NH and Claimant had been separated at least since July XX, 2013, and never resided in the State of New York together. There is no evidence of a formal termination of the domestic partnership. We have no information indicating that the Claimant or the NH married anyone else. The NH died on January XX, 2015, while domiciled in New York.

The child is currently receiving surviving child’s benefits on NH’s record, and Claimant applied for mother’s benefits on NH’s record as his widow with his child in her care.

ANALYSIS

A. Federal Law: Widow(er) under the Act for Mother’s Insurance Benefits

Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to mother’s insurance benefits on a deceased insured individual’s account if, among other things, the claimant is the widow(er) of the insured individual and their marital relationship lasted at least nine months before the insured individual died[2] . See 42 U.S.C. § 402(g)(1) (mother’s and father’s insurance benefits), § 416(a)(2) (“surviving spouse” means a widow or widower); 20 C.F.R. § 404.339(a) (you are entitled to mother’s or father’s insurance benefits if you are the widow(er) of the insured and meet the conditions in § 404.335(a)); Program Operations Manual System (POMS) RS 00208.001 (mother/father definitions and requirements for mother’s or father’s benefits).

The agency will find that a claimant is an insured individual’s widow(er) if the courts of the State in which the insured individual was domiciled at the time of death would find that the claimant and the insured individual were validly married at the time the insured individual died, or if, under application of that State’s intestate succession laws, the claimant would be able to inherit a spouse’s share of the insured’s personal property. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.344, 404.345; POMS GN 00305.001, GN 00305.005A.

It is our understanding that there is no evidence or allegation of a valid marriage between the Claimant and the NH; rather, there is only evidence of their D.C. domestic partnership. Following section 216(h)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the agency will treat a couple’s non-marital legal relationship as a marital relationship and consider a claimant to be the NH’s widow(er) for Title II benefit purposes if the State of the NH’s domicile would allow the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share of the NH’s personal property if the NH died without leaving a will. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345; see also POMS GN 00305.005A (non-marital legal relationships can be treated as marital relationships for Title II benefit purposes). Here, the NH was domiciled in New York when he died. Thus, New York law applies to determine whether the Claimant is the NH’s widow based on the couple’s D.C. domestic partnership.

B. State Law: The Opposite-Sex Domestic Partnership was Valid under D.C. Law and Would Allow the Claimant to Inherit a Spouse’s Share under New York Intestate Succession Law

To determine whether a claimant in a non-marital legal relationship is considered married for Title II benefit purposes, we consider whether the non-marital legal relationship is valid under the laws of the State in which it was established and whether the State of domicile would allow the claimant to inherit a spouse’s share under intestate succession law based on the non-marital legal relationship. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.

1. D.C. Law: The Domestic Partnership is Valid under D.C. Law

We first consider whether the couple’s domestic partnership was valid in D.C..[3] Pursuant to the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, now codified at D.C. Code §§ 32-701 – 32-710, (1992 Act) (which was fully effectuated in 2002), same-sex and opposite-sex couples were permitted to enter into domestic partnerships in D.C. Thereafter, the District of Columbia Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2006 amended numerous statutory provisions of the D.C. Code to expand the benefits granted to domestic partners, conferring on them similar rights and responsibilities held by spousal couples in the areas of spousal immunity, inheritance, spousal support, and public assistance. See 2006 D.C. Legis. Serv. 16-79 (effective April 4, 2006). Of most importance here, the District of Columbia Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2006 amended provisions of the D.C. Code’s intestate provisions so that an intestate share could transfer to a “surviving spouse” or “surviving domestic partner” upon death. D.C. Code § 19–302. Further, the Omnibus Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2008 amended the D.C. Code to replace the word “spouse” with the phrase “spouse or domestic partner.” See 2008 D.C. Legis. Serv. 17-231 (effective September 12, 2008). Termination of marriages and domestic partnerships are still governed by separate sections of the D.C. Code. Compare D.C. Code § 16–904 with D.C. Code § 32–702.

In summary, a domestic partnership is recognized under D.C. law as a separate legal institution from a marriage. In addition, D.C. law provides domestic partners with many of the same rights and responsibilities as spouses to a marriage, including the right to inherit from a decedent as a surviving domestic partner under D.C. intestate succession law. See POMS GN 00210.004D.5. [4]

To enter into a valid domestic partnership in D.C., a couple is required to (1) register as domestic partners by executing a declaration of domestic partnership, and (2) file that declaration with the Mayor. See D.C. Code § 32-702(a); DC Health, Domestic Partnership, https://dchealth.dc.gov/service/domestic-partnership (last visited May 23, 2022) (“Since June 11, 1992, unmarried persons of the same or different genders, regardless of one’s place of residence, have been legally able to register as domestic partnership in the District of Columbia.”); Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, 1992 District of Columbia Laws 9-114 (Act 9-188). The declaration must be signed by the domestic partners, who affirmed under penalty of perjury that each domestic partner was at least 18 years old; was the sole domestic partner of the other person; was not married; and was in a committed relationship with the other person. D.C. Code § 32-702(a). Here, as evidenced by the Certificate of Domestic Partnership issued by the D.C. Department of Health, the Claimant and NH entered into a valid domestic partnership in D.C. on May XX, 2008, that complies with the requirements of section 32-702 of the D.C. Code.

D.C. law provides that a registered domestic partnership may be terminated only by the following methods: (1) either party files a termination statement with the Mayor declaring that the partnership is to be terminated and a copy of the termination has been served on the other partner if the statement is not signed by both parties; (2) either party abandons the domestic partnership and the other party files a termination statement declaring that the partnership is to be terminated, the abandoning party departed the mutual residence at least six months before the termination statement, and a copy of the statement is served on the abandoning party if the location is known; (3) if the parties marry each other or another person; (4) by the death of either domestic partner; or (5) by judicial decree or judgment. See D.C. Code § 32-702(d). Despite the fact that NH and Claimant lived separately and may have qualified for termination on the ground of abandonment, there is no indication that a termination statement was ever filed with the Mayor. See D.C. Code § 32-702(d)(1), (2). Further, there is no information that either party married someone else or obtained a judicial decree or judgment terminating the domestic partnership. See D.C. Code § 32-702(d)(3), (5).

As the statute makes clear that the only way to terminate a domestic partnership is through the methods listed in the statute, the NH and the Claimant remained in this valid D.C. domestic partnership until the time of NH’s death on January XX, 2015, in New York. See D.C. Code § 32-702(d)(4) (a domestic partnership shall terminate upon the death of either domestic partner).

2. New York State Law: New York Would Allow the Claimant to Inherit a Spouse’s Share under Intestate Succession Law based on the D.C. Domestic Partnership

We next consider whether the Claimant could inherit a spouse’s share from the NH under New York intestate succession law based upon the couple’s valid D.C. domestic partnership. New York’s Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law (EPTL) provides that an intestate decedent’s property may pass to his or her “spouse.” N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 4-1.1(a). Though the intestacy section of the EPTL does not define “spouse,” the law elsewhere advises that for purposes of various sections of the EPTL, “a husband or wife is a surviving spouse …” barring certain exceptions. N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 5-1.2(a). The EPTL does not further define spouse, husband, or wife.

Unlike D.C. law, New York State has not enacted legislation allowing domestic partnerships. Thus, there is no state-wide authorization of domestic partnerships or recognition of out-of-state domestic partnerships under New York State law. Some cities, towns, and counties in New York have authorized domestic partnerships under their local laws. The New York Legislature has offered only limited statutory rights to such unmarried domestic partners. Some of the rights afforded to domestic partners include: right to visit partner if they are a patient in a hospital or similar entity (N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2805-q); right to death benefits for surviving domestic partners of those who perished in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 4); right to special tax extensions for individuals whose domestic partner is deployed on a military assignment (N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law § 925-d); right to dispose of partner’s remains in the event of death and give away partner’s organs as an anatomical gift (N.Y. Pub. Health Law §§ 4201, 4301); right of cancellation on specific contracts (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 653); right to sell or exchange arms within family (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 898); and right to video teleconferencing with partner ordered to active duty (N.Y. Mil. Law § 254). However, of most importance here, the statutory rights granted to unmarried domestic partners do not include the right to inherit under New York intestacy law as a “spouse.”[5] See O’Reilly-Morshead v. O’Reilly-Morshead, 83 N.Y.S.3d 379, 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) (“When the New York State Legislature enacted the Marriage Equality Act, it granted same-sex couples the right to marry, but it did not grant those couples who had entered into civil unions the same rights as those who marry.”).

Although New York statutory law does not expressly provide for the recognition of an out-of-state non-marital legal relationship, based on recent case law, we believe New York courts would apply principles of comity to recognize a non-marital legal relationship with inheritance rights (like the couple’s D.C. domestic partnership) for the purpose of inheritance of a spouse’s share under New York intestate succession laws. See Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v. University of Houston, 404 N.E.2d 726, 730 (N.Y. 1980) (“The doctrine of comity ‘is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency.’ It does not of its own force compel a particular course of action. Rather, it is an expression of one State’s entirely voluntary decision to defer to the policy of another.”) (internal citations omitted). In 2018, in a marriage dissolution case filed in New York also involving the equitable distribution of property rights acquired during a Vermont civil union (prior to the couple’s marriage), New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department[6] addressed the status of Vermont civil unions under New York law. The Court held that “a civil union is not equivalent to a marriage for the purposes of equitable distribution of property” under New York’s Domestic Relations Law. O’Reilly-Morshead v. O’Reilly-Morshead, 83 N.Y.S.3d 379, 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018). The Court went on, however, to hold that “comity does require the recognition of property rights arising from a civil union in Vermont,” pointing out that marriage-equivalent property division is one of the rights granted by Vermont’s civil union law. Id. at 382 (citing Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1204(d)). The Court emphasized that New York’s and Vermont’s laws shared a common public policy, which was to “predicate[] [property rights] on objective evidence of a formal legal relationship …” Id. The Court also relied on a decision from the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, which applied the principle of comity to recognize parental status arising from Vermont law, but “left open the question whether New York should extend comity to the civil union for purposes other than parentage.” Id. (citing Debra H. v. Janice R., 930 N.E.2d 184 (N.Y. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 61 N.E.3d 488 (N.Y. 2016)).

In the present claim, even though we believe New York courts would find that the couple’s D.C. domestic partnership was not a marriage and they were not “spouses” as contemplated by New York’s EPTL, the New York Appellate Division’s decision in O’Reilly-Morshead suggests that New York courts would nonetheless apply the principle of comity to recognize inheritance rights arising from the D.C. domestic partnership. As with Vermont’s civil union law, D.C.’s domestic partnership law provides for marriage-equivalent property distribution, as discussed above. See D.C. Code § 19–301 et seq. (statutory provisions regarding intestate succession); see also Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2006, 2006 D.C. Legis. Serv. 16-79 (effective April 4, 2006) (“An Act to amend the District of Columbia Official Code to grant domestic partners similar rights and responsibilities currently held by spousal couples in the areas of spousal immunity, inheritance, surviving spouses and children, spousal support, and public assistance.”). D.C. law provides domestic partners with many of the same rights and responsibilities as spouses to a marriage, including the right to inherit from a decedent as a surviving domestic partner under D.C. intestate succession law. See D.C. Code § 19-302. Although the New York Appellate Division did not speak directly to intestate rights of inheritance, we see no basis on which to distinguish this form of property right from other property rights arising from a civil union or domestic partnership. And while O’Reilly-Morshead did not come from New York’s highest court, its recognition of rights arising from non-marital legal relationships is broadly consistent with that court’s holding in Debra H.

Accordingly, we believe New York courts would apply principles of comity to recognize the Claimant’s right to inherit a spouse’s share under New York intestate succession law based on their valid D.C. domestic partnership, which provided for inheritance rights under D.C. law. [7] See POMS PR 05840.035 New York, A. 19-045 (Jan. 31, 2019) (advising that New York would likely apply principles of comity to recognize the valid Vermont civil union and allow inheritance of a spouse’s share under New York intestate succession law).

CONCLUSION

We believe that New York courts would find that at the time of the NH’s death on January XX, 2015, the Claimant could inherit a spouse’s share under New York intestacy law based on her valid D.C. domestic partnership with the NH. As such, there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s widow for purposes of determining her entitlement to mother’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

B. PR 18-107 Recognition of a D.C. Opposite-Sex Domestic Partnership for Entitlement to TII

Date: March 29, 2018

1. SYLLABUS

The number holder ( NH) died in the District of Columbia (D.C.); therefore, the Agency looks to the D.C. law to determine survivorship rights for the NH’s estate. The (NH) and the Claimant entered into a domestic partnership in the D.C. The NH and the Claimant remained in that domestic partnership, while residing in D.C., until the NH’s death. According to D.C.’s intestacy statute, a surviving domestic partner is treated the same as a surviving spouse with respect to intestate inheritance. Based on the evidence provided, the Agency should recognize the D.C. domestic partnership between NH and the Claimant for purposes of entitlement to Title II benefits as the widower of the NH.

2. Opinion

QUESTION PRESENTED

You asked whether the Agency would recognize an opposite-sex domestic partnership entered into in the District of Columbia (D.C.) to establish a non-marital legal relationship for purposes of entitlement to Title II benefits.

ANSWER

We believe that a member of an opposite-sex D.C. domestic partnership is entitled to Title II benefits because a D.C. domestic partnership is a non-marital legal relationship conferring inheritance rights on a surviving domestic partner under D.C. law.

BACKGROUND[8]

On November XX, 2014, the Number Holder, M~ (NH), and the Claimant, S~ (CL), entered into a domestic partnership in Washington, D.C. The NH and the CL remained in that domestic partnership, while residing in D.C., until the NH’s death on January XX, 2018. The CL filed a surviving spouse’s benefit application on April XX, 2018.

DISCUSSION

A. Federal Law

To be entitled to survivor’s benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, a claimant must establish that she or he is the widow or widower of an individual who died fully insured.[9] See Social Security Act §§ 202(e), (f), 416(c)(1),(g)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.335. The Agency will find a claimant to be the widow or widower of an insured individual if the courts of the state [10] in which the insured individual was domiciled at the time of his or her death would find that the claimant was validly married to the insured individual when the death occurred. Social Security Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i).

A “non-marital legal relationship,” such as a civil union or domestic partnership, can be treated as a marital relationship. See POMS GN 00305.005 (Determining Marital Status) (“[i]n determining whether a claimant qualified as a spouse under the Social Security Act, consider all of the following types of marital relationships . . . [including] domestic partnerships”).

The Agency will recognize a non-marital legal relationship if, under the laws of the State where the insured individual had a permanent home upon death, the claimant “ would be able to inherit a wife’s, husband’s, widow’s, or widower’s share of the insured’s property if he or she were to die without leaving a will.” Social Security Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.

B. D.C. Law

The information provided to us indicates that NH died in D.C. As such, the Agency looks to D.C. law to determine survivorship rights for his estate. See Social Security Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(i); see also D.C. Code Ann. § 19-101.01 (“Sections 19-101.01 to 19-101.06 [the sections governing survivor’s rights] apply to the estate of a decedent who dies domiciled in the District of Columbia.”).

D.C. established domestic partnerships in 1992. See Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114 (effective June 11, 1992), codified at D.C. Code § 32-701 to 32-710); see also DC.gov Department of Health, domestic partnership information, https://dchealth.dc.gov/service/domestic-partnership (last visited June 11, 2018)[11] . The Act was fully effectuated in 2002

In 2006, D.C. passed the Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act (“2006 Act”), which greatly expanded the benefits granted domestic partners, conferring upon them “similar rights and responsibilities held by spousal couples in the areas of spousal immunity, inheritance, surviving spouses and children, spousal support, and public assistance.” Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2006, D.C. Law 16-79 (effective Apr. 4, 2006), available at https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/laws/docs/16-79.pdf (last visited June 14, 2018).

In particular, the 2006 Act amended D.C.’s intestacy statute to treat a surviving domestic partner the same as a surviving spouse with respect to intestate inheritance, D.C. Code § 19–301 et seq.; see also Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2006, D.C. Law 16-79, available at https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/laws/docs/16-79.pdf. As a result, D.C.’s intestacy statute provides that “the personal estate of the deceased resident of the District [of Columbia], if not bequeathed, shall be distributed, to the surviving spouse or surviving domestic partner . . . .” D.C. Code § 19-301. The statute further provides that domestic partners are treated the same as surviving spouses with respect to the size of the share of the decedent’s estate. D.C. Code § 19-302.[12]

C. Analysis of D.C. Domestic Partnerships for Purposes of Title II Benefits

Here, as evidenced by the Certificate of Domestic Partnership issued by the D.C. Department of Health, the CL and the NH entered into a domestic partnership in D.C. in November 2014.

As discussed above, D.C. law confers upon a surviving domestic partner the same “rights and responsibilities” as a spouse with respect to the right to inherit from an intestate estate. In particular, D.C. law permits a domestic partner to inherit the same intestate share as a spouse. Accordingly, the D.C. domestic partnership between NH and CL meets the criteria for treating a non-marital legal relationship as a marital relationship for purposes of entitlement to Title II benefits. Therefore, we conclude that the Agency should recognize the NH and CL’s D.C. domestic partnership for purposes of entitlement to Title II benefits. See Social Security Act § 216(h)(1)(A)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 404.345.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is our opinion that the Agency should recognize the D.C. domestic partnership between NH and CL for purposes of entitlement to Title II benefits and, therefore, that CL is entitled to Title II benefits as the widower of NH.

 


Footnotes:

[1]

This opinion is based upon information provided by the Region I Center for Disability and Programs Support in Boston.

[2]

The Claimant must satisfy other criteria for entitlement to mother’s insurance benefits as the NH’s widow, or surviving spouse, that are outside the scope of this legal opinion request, which asks only about their marital status given their domestic partnership. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.339; POMS RS 00208.001.

[3]

“State” includes the District of Columbia. POMS GN 00305.001B.1.

[4]

The agency recognizes that a D.C. domestic partnership established on or after January 26, 2006, is a type of non-marital legal relationship that confers inheritance rights. See POMS GN 00210.004D.5; see also POMS PR 05005.010 District of Columbia, A. PR 18-107 (March 29, 2018) (given the valid opposite-sex D.C. domestic partnership, the agency could consider the claimant to be the NH’s surviving spouse for purposes of his application for widower’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record); POMS PR 05845.010 District of Columbia, A. PR 17-127 (Aug. 2, 2017) (advising that under D.C. law, a valid domestic partnership entered into in D.C. confers inheritance rights and further, D.C. recognizes non-marital relationships entered into in accordance with State laws that are substantially similar to domestic partnerships in D.C.).

[5]

New York City provides for locally authorized domestic partnerships under New York City law. The New York City Clerk’s Office cautions that “[b]ecause they cannot be considered spouses . . . . [a] surviving domestic partner does not have any inheritance or life insurance rights absent an explicit bequest in a will.” See https://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/content/domestic-partnership-registration (last visited May 31, 2022).

[6]

Although not New York’s top appellate court, as the New York Appellate Division, Second Department explains, the “Appellate Division is a single statewide court divided into departments for administrative convenience.” Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918, 919-20 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Accordingly, precedents set by one department apply statewide until the Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division of another department pronounces a contrary rule. Id.

[7]

Other States’ courts have applied principles of comity to recognize an out-of-state non-marital legal relationship.  In Sherman v. Rouse, a Court of Special Appeals of Maryland applied the doctrine of comity to recognize a Vermont civil union (the equivalent of marriage under Vermont law) for purposes of a divorce in Maryland.  Sherman v. Rouse, 225 A.3d 490 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020).  In Neyman v. Buckley, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania also held that principles of comity mandated recognition of a Vermont civil union as the legal equivalent of marriage for purposes of dissolution pursuant to the Divorce Code of Pennsylvania.  Neyman v. Buckley, 153 A.3d 1010, 1018 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).  In reaching this conclusion, the court observed that the Vermont civil union statute specifically grants parties to a civil union all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law that are conferred to spouses in a marriage.  Id.  The court further noted that Vermont civil unions have a distinct “odor of marriage” and the only substantive difference between civil unions and marriages are “sexual orientation and semantics.”  Id. (citations omitted).  Similarly, in Gardenour v. Bondelie, the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that as a matter of comity, a same-sex couple’s California registered domestic partnership was “the equivalent of marriage” for purposes of dissolution in Indiana.  Gardenour v. Bondelie, 60 N.E.3d 1109, 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).  The court in Gardenour observed that California law made clear that a registered domestic partnership is “identical to marriage.”  Id. at 1118.

[8]

This background is based on the information provided to us in the May XX, 2018 email requesting our opinion on this issue.

[9]

Whether the NH died fully insured is outside the scope of this opinion.

[10]

The Agency includes D.C. in the definition of “state.” POMS GN 00210.004.

[11]

By way of background, D.C. domestic partnerships can be same sex or opposite sex. https://dchealth.dc.gov/service/domestic-partnership (last visited June 11, 2018). The statutory rights conferred by the law originally creating domestic partnerships include healthcare and other employment benefits for employees of D.C., the right to hospital visitation as a family member, and the right to make decisions about a domestic partner’s remains after passing. Id.; see also D.C. Code Ann. § 32-704 (“Domestic partnership benefits”). The rights of domestic partners were later broadened under the Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act, as discussed above.

[12]

Notably, although the D.C. Code refers to “domestic partners” and “spouses” as two separate categories of relationships rather than by defining “spouses” to include “domestic partners”, as discussed above, the intent of the 2006 Act was clearly to confer upon domestic partners “similar rights and responsibilities held by spousal couples” including in the areas of inheritance and intestacy. Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2006, D.C. Law 16-79, available at https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/laws/docs/16-79.pdf. Thus, the fact that the Code utilizes the separate terms “domestic partner” and “spouse” is irrelevant, since D.C. law clearly confers the same intestacy rights on both categories of relationships.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1505005010
PR 05005.010 - District of Columbia - 06/27/2022
Batch run: 06/27/2022
Rev:06/27/2022