AR 86-14(4): Jones v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare , 629 F.2d 334 (4th Cir. 1980) -- Child's Benefits -- Contributions for Support -- Title II of the Social Security Act

AR 86-14(4)

EFFECTIVE DATE: 4/8/86

ISSUE:

Whether the Secretary must, in his evaluation of the worker's

"contributions to the support" of an illegitimate child, consider the

worker's means and the income of the family in which the child resided.

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:

Section 216(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(e)); Section

216(h)(3)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(C)(ii)); 20 C.F.R. 404,366(a)(2)

CIRCUIT:

FOURTH (MARYLAND, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, WEST

VIRGINIA)

Jones v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare , 629 F.2d 334

(4th Cir. 1980)

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

DESCRIPTION OF CASE(S):

Beverly Jones, born on March 20, 1962, is the illegitimate daughter of

Arilla Jones and David Craig. The child lived with her mother in the home

of her grandparents. David Craig lived with his mother and siblings. Both

families were large and impoverished. Mr. Craig was employed and earned

$1,483.67 in 1962. In March 1963, after a month-long hospitalization, Mr.

Craig died. His earnings for 1963 were $301.65. In 1975, Arilla Jones

filed an application for child's insurance benefits for Beverly Jones on

Mr. Craig's Social Security earnings record. Arilla Jones claimed that

Beverly was David Craig's child who is deemed dependent on him under

section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act. The ALJ concluded

that Mr. Craig was Beverly's father but that he was not making regular and

substantial contributions for the support of the child at the time of his

death, as required by section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii). The Appeals Council

affirmed the ALJ's determination which became the Secretary's final

decision. Ms. Jones then sought review of the Secretary's decision in the

United States district court. The district court affirmed the Secretary's

decision and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit

he child at the time of his

death, as required by section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii). The Appeals Council

affirmed the ALJ's determination which became the Secretary's final

decision. Ms. Jones then sought review of the Secretary's decision in the

United States district court. The district court affirmed the Secretary's

decision and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court with

instructions to remand to the Secretary for further proceedings in

accordance with the Court of Appeals' opinion.

HOLDING:

The Court of Appeals held that the test properly to be applied is whether

contributions which were regular and substantial in relation to the

worker's income and the child's need were made. The court stated: "Whether

the wage earner was contributing to the support of Beverly must be

determined by comparing the amount and frequency of contribution with the

wage earner's income and with the income of the family in which the child

resided." The court reasoned that the loss of small regular contributions

to a poor family would cause the economic dislocation which the Social

Security Act seek to prevent. The court could not determine whether the

ALJ took Mr. Craig's financial circumstances and the child's needs into

account in determining that Mr. Craig was not making regular and

substantial contributions to Beverly's support. Because the court found

that the test applied by the ALJ was unclear, the court remanded for

reconsideration of the claim.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW JONES DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

POLICY:

determine whether the

ALJ took Mr. Craig's financial circumstances and the child's needs into

account in determining that Mr. Craig was not making regular and

substantial contributions to Beverly's support. Because the court found

that the test applied by the ALJ was unclear, the court remanded for

reconsideration of the claim.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW JONES DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

POLICY:

The "contributing to the support of the applicant" provision in section

216(h)(3)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(C)(ii)) has been interpreted by the

Social Security Administration in regulation 20 C.F.R. 404.366(a)(2) to

require contributions that are both regularly made and large enough to

meet an important part of the applicant's ordinary living costs. When

evaluating contributions to support, SSA attaches little relevance to the

worker's financial circumstances; it assesses contributions in terms of

the child's needs and the extent to which they were met by the worker's

contributions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the

levels of income of both the father and of the household in which the

child resides were factors that must be considered in determining whether

contributions meet the statutory requirement of support.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:

This ruling applies only to cases where the child resides in North

Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia or Maryland at the time

of determination or decision at any level of administrative review, i.e.,

initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing or Appeals

Council.

statutory requirement of support.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:

This ruling applies only to cases where the child resides in North

Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia or Maryland at the time

of determination or decision at any level of administrative review, i.e.,

initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing or Appeals

Council.

In a claim for surviving child's benefits under Section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii)

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(C)(ii)) where the worker's

income had been irregular or insubstantial, the substantiality and

regularity of the worker's contributions to the applicant's support must

be evaluated in light of the financial resources of both the worker

and the household in which the child resides.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Date of Publication