Effective Dates: 06/02/2021 - Present Previous | Next

TN 30 (06-21)

PR 01805.048 Texas

A. PR 21-016 Termination of Parental Rights

DATE: March 4, 2021

1. Syllabus

Texas statutory law expressly provides that a child retains the right to inherit from a parent following a court order terminating the parent-child relationship, unless the court order expressly provides otherwise. 

In this case, the Order of Termination did not divest Claimant of her right to inherit from the NH. Therefore, we believe there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH's child for purposes of her application for child's insurance benefits on the NH's record.

2. Question Presented

M~ filed an application for child’s insurance benefits on behalf of his daughter, J~ (Claimant), on the record of the deceased number holder M2~ (NH) alleging the Claimant is the NH’s child despite a Texas court order terminating their parent-child relationship. You asked whether the Claimant is the NH’s child for purposes of her application for child’s insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act) on the NH’s record.

3. Answer

We believe Texas courts would find that the Claimant could inherit from the NH under Texas intestate succession law even though a Texas court terminated the parent-child relationship between the NH and the Claimant because Texas law provides that a child retains the right to inherit from the parent even after a court orders termination of the parent-child relationship, unless the court otherwise provides. The Order of Termination did not divest Claimant of her right to inherit from the NH. Thus, per section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, as she retains the right to inherit from the NH under Texas law, we believe there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s child for purposes of her application for child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.[1]

4. Background

On September XX, 2006, the Claimant was born to the NH, her biological and birth mother, and M~, her father, in Texas. In 2011, M~filed a petition in a Texas district court seeking to terminate the parent-child relationship between the Claimant and the NH. See In the Interest of J~, a Minor Child, Cause No. XXXXX, District Court, 216th Judicial District of Gillespie County, Texas. On May XX, 2011, the court entered an Order of Termination finding that the NH was properly served but did not appear; that the court had proper jurisdiction; and that clear and convincing evidence established that the NH failed to support the Claimant in accordance with her ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition. Further, in the Order of Termination, the court terminated the parent-child relationship between the NH and the Claimant; ordered that the NH’s name, as the biological mother, be removed from the Claimant’s Texas birth certificate; and ordered that M~ had the right to apply for a new Social Security card for the Claimant. M~ provided the agency with a copy of the Order of Termination and with a copy of Claimant’s amended Texas birth certificate listing only M~ as the Claimant’s father and identifying no mother.

You advised that the NH died on April XX, 2019, domiciled in Texas. On July 27, 2020, on behalf of the Claimant, M~ filed an application for child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record as her child.

5. Analysis

a. Federal Law: Entitlement to Child’s Insurance Benefits under the Act as a Natural Child Per Section 216(h)(2)(A)

Under Title II of the Act, a claimant may be entitled to child’s insurance benefits on an insured individual’s account if, among other things, he or she is the insured individual’s child.[2] See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350. The Act and regulations define “child” as an insured individual’s natural child, legally adopted child, stepchild, grandchild, step grandchild, or equitably adopted child. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(e); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.354˗.359. Consistent with the scope of your request, our inquiry first focuses on whether the Claimant is the NH’s natural child.

To determine a claimant’s status as a natural child, the agency must determine whether the claimant could inherit the insured individual’s personal property as his or her child under the intestacy laws of the State where the insured individual had his or her permanent home at the time of the insured’s death. See 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(a)(1), (b). Texas law controls because the NH’s permanent home was in Texas when she died in 2019. Therefore, we apply Texas intestate succession laws to determine whether the Claimant could inherit from the NH as her child. See POMS GN 00306.012C.3 (instructing that the agency generally presumes that a child would inherit as the NH’s child from the child’s birth mother, but to not presume a child may inherit from the NH when evidence indicates that the NH is the birth mother, but may not be the legal parent under the applicable State’s intestacy laws, such as if the NH’s parental rights have been terminated), GN 00306.010C (instructions to obtain a legal opinion to determine whether the termination of a NH’s parental rights also terminates the child’s right to inherit from the NH under State law).

b. State Law: A Child’s Right to Inheritance under Texas Intestate Succession Laws

1. Maternal Inheritance under Texas Intestate Succession Laws

Texas law allows a child to inherit property from his or her deceased parent by intestate succession. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. §§ 201.001˗.003 (if a person who dies intestate does not have a spouse, the person’s estate passes to the person’s children), 201.051 (maternal inheritance), 201.052 (paternal inheritance). Of relevance here, section 201.051 of the Estates Code provides as follows for maternal inheritance under intestate succession:

(a) For purposes of inheritance, a child is the child of the child’s biological or adopted mother, and the child and the child’s issue shall inherit from the child’s mother and the child’s maternal kindred, both descendants, ascendants, and collateral kindred in all degrees, and they may inherit from the child and the child’s issue. However, if a child has intended parents, as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code, under a gestational agreement . . . the child is the child of the intended mother and not the biological mother or gestational mother unless the biological mother is also the intended mother.

(b) This section does not permit inheritance by a child for whom no right of inheritance accrues under Section 201.056 or by the child’s issue.

Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051 (effective Sept. 1, 2015, to present).

Here, there is no gestational agreement; rather, the evidence establishes that the NH is the Claimant’s biological and birth mother. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051(a); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.201(a)(1) (the mother-child relationship is established between a woman and a child by the woman giving birth to the child). Section 201.056 pertains to persons not in being at the time of the NH’s death, which is not relevant here. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. §§ 201.051(b), 201.056. Accordingly, the Claimant, as the NH’s biological child, has the right to inherit from the NH under Texas intestate succession law. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051(a).

The evidence also shows that the NH’s parent-child relationship with the Claimant was subsequently terminated by a State court order in 2011. See Order of Termination, In the Interest of J~, a Minor Child, Cause No. XXXXX, District Court, 216th Judicial District of Gillespie County, Texas. We next consider the primary issue posed – the impact of this termination of the parent-child relationship upon the Claimant’s right to inherit from the NH, her biological and birth mother.

2. Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship and the Child’s Right to Inherit from the Parent under Texas Law

The law regarding termination of the parent-child relationship is contained in sections 161.001 through 161.211 of the Texas Family Code. Texas law provides that a court may order involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has undertaken certain actions set forth in the law, including as relevant here, that the parent has “failed to support the child in accordance with the parent’s ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b) (setting forth the grounds for termination of the parent-child relationship). “If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination of the parent-child relationship, it shall render an order terminating the parent-child relationship.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(a); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.007 (defining “clear and convincing evidence” as “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established”). The court order terminating the parent-child relationship must include a finding that a request for identification of a court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction has been made and all parties entitled to notice have been notified. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(d); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 155.001 (a court acquires continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over matters affecting the parent-child relationship on the rendition of a final order).

The Order of Termination complies with Texas law. The Order of Termination identifies a proper ground for termination – the NH’s failure to support the Claimant in accordance with her ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(F). The Court found in the Order of Termination that M~ proved this ground by clear and convincing evidence. See id. The Court found in this Order of Termination that the Court had jurisdiction and no other court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the case. See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. §§ 155.01, 161.206(d). The Court found in this Order of Termination that all persons entitled to citation were properly cited. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(d). And finally, based on clear and convincing evidence establishing legal grounds for termination, the Court ordered termination of the parent-child relationship between the NH and the Claimant. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(a). Thus, this Order of Termination complies with Texas law.

With regard to the rights and duties impacted by the termination of the parent-child relationship, Texas law states:

Except as provided by Section 161.2016 [regarding limited post-termination contact with the child], an order terminating the parent-child relationship divests the parent and the child of all legal rights and duties with respect to each other, except that the child retains the right to inherit from and through the parent unless the court otherwise provides.

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(b) (emphasis added); see also LG Electronics, USA, Inc. v. Grigg, 424 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2014, no pet.) (noting that an order terminating the parent-child relationship divests the child of all legal rights with respect to the parent except the right to inherit from the parent); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 151.001 (listing the legal rights and duties of a parent as to a child).[3] Thus, Texas statutory law expressly provides that a child retains the right to inherit from a parent following a court order terminating the parent-child relationship, unless the court order expressly provides otherwise. Here, the Court did not include any finding indicating that the Claimant’s right to inherit from the NH was impacted by this Order of Termination. Therefore, under Texas law and per the terms of this Order of Termination, the Claimant retains the right to inherit from the NH.

Finally, as the evidence concerning this parent-child relationship centers upon a State court order, we are mindful of the considerations required under Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-37c and Gray v. Richardson. See SSR 83-37c (adopting Gray v. Richardson, 474 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1973)); POMS GN 00306.015B.2. Generally, a State court decision does not bind the agency if it involves a proceeding to which the agency was not a party. See id. Pursuant to SSR 83-37c, which adopts the Sixth Circuit’s Gray decision, State court determinations of domestic relations matters are entitled to deference and bind the agency only if the following four factors are satisfied:

1. an issue in a claim for Social Security benefits was previously adjudicated by a State court of competent jurisdiction;

2. the issue was genuinely contested before the State court by parties with opposing interests;

3. the issue falls within the general category of domestic relations law; and

4. the resolution by the State trial court is consistent with the law enunciated by the highest court in the State.

SSR 83-37c.[4]

We believe that all four factors are likely met here, which means the agency is bound by this Order of Termination. First, the parent-child relationship and the Claimant’s right to inherit from the NH (the central issue of Claimant’s application for child’s benefits on the NH’s record) was at issue in this Order of Termination, and this State district court is a court of competent jurisdiction for suits affecting the parent-child relationship. Second, the petition to terminate the parent-child relationship was brought in this adverse proceeding by M~ (the father) against the NH (the mother), who was properly served, in which M~ was required to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, we believe the issue of involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship was genuinely contested by parties with opposing interests. Third, the parent-child relationship falls within the general category of domestic relations law. Fourth, the Order of Termination is consistent with Texas law, as shown above.

Even though the agency is likely bound by this State court order, the Order of Termination does not impact the Claimant’s right to inherit from the NH (the Claimant’s biological and birth mother) under Texas law and under the express findings in the Order of Termination. We believe Texas courts would find that the Claimant has the right to inherit from the NH under Texas intestate succession law. See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 201.051(a); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(b). Consequently, per section 216(h)(2)(A), there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s child for purposes of her application for child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

6. Conclusion

We believe Texas courts would find that the Claimant could inherit from the NH under Texas intestate succession law even though a Texas court terminated the parent-child relationship between the NH and the Claimant because Texas law provides that a child retains the right to inherit from the parent even after a court orders termination of the parent-child relationship, unless the court otherwise provides. The Order of Termination did not divest Claimant of her right to inherit from the NH. Thus, per section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, as she retains the right to inherit from the NH under Texas law, we believe there is legal support for the agency to find that the Claimant is the NH’s child for purposes of her application for child’s insurance benefits on the NH’s record.

B. PR 05-136 Inheritance Rights of Adopted Child Whose Parent's Parental Rights Were Terminated; Matthew D. M~

DATE: April 20, 2005

Opinion removed on March 31, 2011, because it was based on an incorrect legal framework for the adopted child.

Footnotes:

[1]

Because we believe the agency can reasonably conclude, per section 216(h)(2) of the Act, that the Claimant has the right to inherit from the NH under Texas intestate succession law, we need not address your alternative questions regarding the Claimant’s status as the NH’s child under section 216(h)(3) of the Act.

[2]

The child claimant must satisfy other criteria for her application for child’s insurance benefits that are outside the scope of this legal opinion request. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.350. We focus only on the requirement of a parent-child relationship between the claimant and the number holder. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(a)(1).

[3]

You asked whether “termination of parental rights” is synonymous with “termination of the parent-child relationship.” Texas law sets forth the “rights and duties” of a parent and explains that such rights and duties are subject to a court order affecting the rights and duties. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 151.001 (listing the rights and duties of a parent to include, among other things, the right to have physical possession of a child, the duty to support the child, and the duty to care, control, protect, and discipline the child). And, as stated, Texas law provides that an order terminating the parent-child relationship “divests the parent and the child of all legal rights and duties with respect to each other,” except for the child’s right of inheritance from the parent. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.206(b). In other words, under Texas law, a termination of the parent-child relationship by court order terminates parental rights and duties as to the child and the child’s rights and duties as to the parent, except for the child’s right to inherit from the parent. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 151.001, 161.206(b).

[4]

The Fifth Circuit’s test for determining when a State court order binds the agency is generally consistent with SSR 83-37c, but it places an emphasis upon the fourth Gray factor. See Warren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 868 F.2d 1444, 1446-47 (5th Cir. 1989); Garcia v. Sullivan, 883 F.2d 18, 19-20 (5th Cir. 1989). In Garcia, the Commissioner declined to accept a State court determination regarding paternity because parties with opposing interests did not genuinely contest the issue. Garcia, 883 F.2d at 20. Thus, the agency relied upon the second Gray criteria to find that the State court order did not bind the agency. The Fifth Circuit stated in Garcia that because the agency is required to determine how the State courts would decide the matter, “where a state trial court has adjudicated the issue in an adversarial setting the [agency’s] inquiry is manifestly simplified: the [agency] should follow the decision of the state court, absent extraordinary reasons.” Id. (citing Warren, 868 F.2d at 1444). The Fifth Circuit further noted that the agency should only disregard a State court’s decision when the agency is convinced that the decision is in conflict with what the State Supreme Court has held or would hold were it presented with the issue. Id. In reversing the Commissioner’s decision to disregard the State court order, the Fifth Circuit thus emphasized that the agency should disregard a State court order only when the order does not meet the fourth Gray criteria.

To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1501805048
PR 01805.048 - Texas - 06/02/2021
Batch run: 06/02/2021
Rev:06/02/2021