TN 3 (03-21)

PR 01205.047 Tennessee

A. PR 21-011 Sufficiency of DNA Testing of Number Holder’s Alleged Sister to Determine Paternity

DATE: February 26, 2021

1. Syllabus

Claimant cannot qualify as Number Holder's (NH) child under 216(h)(3)(C) because the evidence provided does not show that NH (1) had acknowledged in writing that Claimant is his son, (2) had been decreed by a court to be Claimant’s father, (3) had been ordered by a court to contribute to Claimant’s support because Claimant was his son, or (4) was living with or contributing to the support of Claimant when he died.

2. Question

Whether a DNA test that shows an alleged sister (Aunt) of R~, the number holder (NH), is the aunt of R2~ (Claimant) is sufficient evidence to establish paternity for determining Claimant’s eligibility for child’s insurance benefits (CIB) and a lump-sum death payment (LSDP) on NH’s earnings record.

3. Opinion

Based on the available facts, we do not believe Claimant could establish paternity to inherit from NH under Tennessee intestacy law. Thus, Claimant is not eligible for CIB or a LSDP on NH’s record.

4. Background

According to the information provided, Claimant was born on November XX, 2010, in Tennessee. At the time of birth, his mother (Mother) was married to S~. Claimant’s birth certificate lists S~ as Claimant’s father.

However, Mother alleges NH, not S~, is Claimant’s father. In support, Mother states she was already pregnant when she married S~, that she married S~ during his incarceration, and that she never had sexual intercourse with him during their marriage. A Final Decree of Divorce dated April XX, 2013 dissolved the marriage between Mother and S~ and established a parenting plan for a child.

In 2018, NH died by homicide in Missouri and was a resident of Tennessee at his time of death. He was married to B~ from 2001 until his death. The agency paid B~ the LSDP.

Claimant provided a genetic testing report from Archpoint Labs indicating a 99.96 percent probability Aunt is Claimant’s paternal aunt, as compared to an untested, unrelated person. The report states the testing supports the assertion that a brother of Aunt could be the biological father of Claimant. Mother alleges Aunt is the sister of NH.

5. Discussion

a. Federal Law

A claimant may be eligible for CIB on the earnings record of a deceased insured individual if the claimant is the insured individual’s “child.” Social Security Act (Act) § 202(d)(1); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(1) (2021);[1] Program Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 00306.002A, B; POMS RS 00203.001A.1.b. Additionally, for entitlement to CIB, the claimant must be dependent upon the insured. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.360; POMS GN 00306.002C; POMS RS 00203.001A.1.c. Dependency is determined based on the relationship of the child to the insured. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.361 – 404.365; POMS GN 00306.002F. “Child” includes “the child” of an individual insured for benefits. Act § 216(e)(1); see Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541, 547-48 (2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.354. A claimant may show he is “the child” of an insured individual, within the meaning of the Act.[2] See Capato, 566 U.S. at 548-49. Under section 216(h)(2)(A), a claimant is considered “the child” of an insured individual if the claimant could inherit the insured individual’s intestate personal property under the law of the state in which the insured individual was domiciled when he died. Act § 216(h)(2)(A); see Capato, 566 U.S. at 548-59; 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(4); POMS GN 00306.001J.

Upon the death of an insured individual who does not have a surviving spouse, a LSDP may be paid to each person entitled to child’s benefits on the insured’s record. See Act § 202(i)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.392.

Because NH was domiciled in Tennessee when he died, Tennessee’s law of intestate succession applies in determining Claimant’s status as NH’s child per section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act. Act § 216(h)(2)(A); Capato, 566 U.S. at 548-59; 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(4); POMS GN 00306.001J.

b. State Law

Under Tennessee law, the natural or adopted child of NH would be entitled to a share of NH's intestate estate. TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 31-1-101, 31-2-104 (2021). When the putative father is deceased, a child must establish a parent/child relationship by clear and convincing proof to inherit through intestate succession. See id. § 31-2-105(a)(2)(B). The clear and convincing evidence standard requires more than evidence that merely suggests, implies, or supports paternity. See Majors v. Smith, 776 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tenn. App. 1989). Rather, the evidence must produce a state of conviction about paternity. See id.

DNA tests using genetic material acquired from relatives of a decedent along with other evidence may be used to establish clear and convincing evidence of paternity for purposes of intestate succession in Tennessee. See POMS PR 01115.047(B). A rebuttable presumption of paternity is established under State law if blood, genetic, or DNA testing shows at least a ninety-five percent probability of parentage. TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 24-7-112(b)(2)(B), 36-2-304(a)(5)(2021); POMS PR 01115.047(B). The Tennessee statute provides that such a presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. TENN. CODE ANN. § 36-2-304(b)(3). When the result of blood, genetic, or DNA tests reveal a statistical probability of paternity greater than ninety-nine percent, a nearly conclusive presumption of paternity is established that can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See id. § 24-7-112(b)(2)(C); POMS PR 01115.047(B).

6. Analysis

Here, the DNA test shows a probability that Aunt is the aunt of Claimant, not a probability that NH is the father of Claimant. Therefore, the DNA test does not show paternity and does not create a rebuttable or conclusive presumption of paternity.

Further, the DNA test does not establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence because there is no evidence that NH is the brother of Aunt other than the unsupported statements of Mother. In POMS PR 01115.047(B), the agency found DNA tests between a claimant and an alleged child of a deceased number holder had no value because of a lack of evidence—beyond the unsupported claims of claimant’s mother—that the alleged child was the child of the number holder. Similarly, here, the record lacks evidence that Aunt and NH are siblings.

Moreover, even if established, a sibling relationship between Aunt and NH would not suffice to show paternity by clear and convincing evidence because there is no evidence showing Aunt did not have a brother(s) other than NH who could have fathered Claimant. This reasoning is consistent with precedent opinion in POMS PR 01115.012(E). In that opinion, avuncular genetic test results established a 99.99% probability that the number holder’s brother was the claimant’s uncle as opposed to being unrelated to the claimant. Id. However, the testing did not exclude the possibility that another brother of the number holder was the claimant’s father. Id. The opinion concluded that because the genetic testing did not address that possibility, it did not establish that the claimant could inherit from the number holder under Georgia intestacy law. Id.

Finally, the record lacks evidence that would constitute clear and evidence of paternity. In addition to using the results of DNA tests to determine paternity, a Tennessee court would also consider: (1) the declarations and conduct of Mother; (2) any acknowledgment by NH; (3) family resemblance; and (4) evidence concerning NH’s access, opportunity, and capacity to have children. See POMS PR 01115.047(B).

Here, the available evidence does not establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence. First, Mother was married to S~ at the time of Claimant’s birth, and the birth certificate lists S~ as Claimant’s father. Second, the Divorce Decree also shows Mother and S~ had an agreed parenting plan, which suggests that S~ acted as Claimant’s father, even after he and Mother divorced.[3]

Third, there is no evidence that NH acknowledged paternity of Claimant, provided support for Claimant’s Mother, or held Claimant out as his son. Under similar facts, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held the record lacked clear and convincing evidence of paternity where the deceased putative father did not: (1) attempt to legitimate the child by adjudication; (2) acknowledge paternity openly to the public; (3) hold the child out to his family as his daughter; (4) provide support to the child's mother; and (5) the record lacked evidence of community acceptance of the child as the putative father’s daughter. Gentry v. Jordan, 1986 WL 8152, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 1986).

For the foregoing reasons, the facts of record do not establish NH’s paternity of Claimant by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, Claimant is not entitled to CIB. Because he is not entitled to CIB, he is also not entitled to a LSDP.[4] See Act § 202(i)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.392.

7. Conclusion

We do not believe Tennessee courts would find that the evidence presented provides clear and convincing proof that NH is Claimant’s father under Tennessee intestacy law. Therefore, the agency could not find that Claimant is NH’s child for determining Claimant’s eligibility for CIB and LSDP on NH’s earning record.


Footnotes:

[1]

All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2021 version.

[2]

A claimant also may show that he is the “child” of a deceased insured individual under section 216(h)(2)(B) or section 216(h)(3)(C) of the Act. Claimant cannot be deemed NH’s child under section 216(h)(2)(B) of the Act because the evidence provided does not show that NH and Claimant’s mother participated in a marriage ceremony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(2). Claimant cannot qualify as NH’s child under 216(h)(3)(C) because the evidence provided does not show that NH (1) had acknowledged in writing that Claimant is his son, (2) had been decreed by a court to be Claimant’s father, (3) had been ordered by a court to contribute to Claimant’s support because Claimant was his son, or (4) was living with or contributing to the support of Claimant when he died. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(3), (a)(4).

[3]

The Divorce Decree refers to parenting plan for a child but does not identify Claimant by name. However, the record lacks evidence that Mother had any children besides Claimant.

[4]

Claimant is also not entitled to a LSDP because NH had a surviving spouse to whom the agency paid the LSDP. See Social Security Act § 202(i)(2); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.392.


To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1501205047
PR 01205.047 - Tennessee - 03/25/2021
Batch run: 03/29/2021
Rev:03/25/2021