Iowa Girl Conceived After Father's Death Not Entitled To Benefits, Appeals Court Rules | FoxNews.com

Ok, so Dad has some stored sperm, he passes away, and then Mom decides to use said sperm and then file a claim for Social Security Survivor's benefits. Which way does this go?

1.) She does not get Survivor's Benefits because she technically did not survive him.

2.) She gets it because she is his biological child and he presumably has paid into Social Security enough for a child to be entitled to claim it.

3.) Something else....?

Your thoughts?

[Repti.Mom]

1.) She does not get Survivor's Benefits because she technically did not survive him.

With how scary the economy is where there is on guarantee that my children's children will even get the money they put in, I think it is selfish for someone to try to get more $$ off of daddy long after he is dead. You hear talk all the time about how people shouldn't have kids when they are dependent on welfare, and they just assume they are going to get more money off of the new born part of the family. How is this any different?

[Squishy]

I think she is entitled to benefits. Her father banked his sperm, presumably with the intention of using it so that he and his wife could have a child together. Just because he died, doesn't mean he and his wife's wishes to have a child together should die as well. If he paid into SS, his daughter deserves that money, especially seeing as he will surely not be using it.

[plan4fate]

The simple fact that they CHANGED the law because of this case should mean they qualify.

I agree with Alexandra on the fact he banked it to avoid sterility. That shows intention to use it to have a child. It's not like the woman hassled doctors to extract it from him after a car accident so she could use it.

[femketje]

Entitled to benefits. We do not have SS benefits here but I do agree that the father had stored his sperm with the clear intent of procreating whether it was a week from the date of storage to 50 years... It sounds like the father paid into the benefit and there is no sense in the US government keeping the funds if there is a sole, eligible dependant out there. I feel it doesn't matter whether it was a year from his death or five.

[Star Light]

I disagree and think she is not entitled to the benefits. It is supposed to help replace missing income. The mother decided to follow through on their plans without his income. It should have come as no surprise that this situation might raise eyebrows.

[plan4fate]

Originally Posted by femketje

Entitled to benefits. We do not have SS benefits here but I do agree that the father had stored his sperm with the clear intent of procreating whether it was a week from the date of storage to 50 years... It sounds like the father paid into the benefit and there is no sense in the US government keeping the funds if there is a sole, eligible dependant out there. I feel it doesn't matter whether it was a year from his death or five.

Uh.. yes you do. Both of my brothers received benefits after our father passed away, and will receive them until 25 if they're enrolled in school. My ex did as well. It's a couple hundred bucks a month between them. My ex also received them after his father died until he graduated university. I cannot see that being a Nova Scotia only thing, since NSer's get the shaft on almost everything.

[GinaB]

Originally Posted by Star Light

I disagree and think she is not entitled to the benefits. It is supposed to help replace missing income. The mother decided to follow through on their plans without his income. It should have come as no surprise that this situation might raise eyebrows.

Exactly. It was her choice to "conceive" the child after the father was gone. She knew there was no money coming in from him and shouldn't have included it in her thought process.

[-erin-]

Originally Posted by Star Light

I disagree and think she is not entitled to the benefits. It is supposed to help replace missing income. The mother decided to follow through on their plans without his income. It should have come as no surprise that this situation might raise eyebrows.

I agree with you. While he may have intended to have a child eventually, he didn't at the time of his death. If the child had already been conceived when he died, I could understand that, but the mother initiated and followed through on having the child knowing the father wasn't alive and able to contribute.

[BlueEyes09]

So here is how I see it. The mother had the child knowing she would be the sole provider since the father had passed. But, the father did bank the sperm, which seems to me like he did have the intentions to have the child. I say the child get's the money when they turn 18. But I know nothing of the SS system, how is the money generally distributed when a parent passes away?

[Cereal Killer]

I say she is not entitled. What his intentions may have been, IMO, are irrelevant, since he didn't carry out those intentions while he was alive. To me, it is similar to her saying that an insurance company should give $100K dollars because he had filled the paper work out but never got around to mailing it in.

[*~Amanda~*]

Okay, so putting a different spin on this one. What if a woman found out she was pregnant just before her husband died? That baby isn't outside of the womb and isn't technically being cared for by the father. So should that child be denied the SS too? I know my question isn't what the article about, but it can be spun the same way.

[rose198172]

Originally Posted by *~Amanda~*

Okay, so putting a different spin on this one. What if a woman found out she was pregnant just before her husband died? That baby isn't outside of the womb and isn't technically being cared for by the father. So should that child be denied the SS too? I know my question isn't what the article about, but it can be spun the same way.

Your analogy is not quite equal to the OP, because the act of conceiving a child hadn't happened in the OP until after the father's death. A better analogy would be parents having sex, child conceived, father dies vs. parents undergoing IVF treatments, child conceived, father dies.