SSR 06-02p: Title II: Adjudicating Child Relationship Under Section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act When Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Test Shows Sibling Relationship Between Claimant and a Child of the Worker Who Is Entitled Under Section 216(h)(3) of the Social Security Act

Effective/Publication Date: 06/13/2006 [Federal Register: (Volume 71, Number 113); Page 34186-34187]

POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING

PURPOSE:

To explain our policy when:

- we have determined under section 216(h)(3) of the

Act that a child (referred to here as “C1”) is the

natural child of the worker;

- we must determine whether another child (referred to

here as “C2”) is the worker's child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act; and

- the results of sibling DNA testing show a high

probability of a sibling relationship between C1 and C2.

we have determined under section 216(h)(3) of the

Act that a child (referred to here as “C1”) is the

natural child of the worker;

we must determine whether another child (referred to

here as “C2”) is the worker's child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act; and

the results of sibling DNA testing show a high

probability of a sibling relationship between C1 and C2.

CITATIONS (AUTHORITY):

Sections 202(d) , 205(a) , 216(e) , 216(h)(2)(A) , 216(h)(3) and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act; Regulations No. 4, subpart D, sections 404.350 , 404.354 and 404.355 .

PERTINENT HISTORY:

To be entitled to child's insurance benefits on the earnings record of a

worker under section 202(d) of the Act,

a claimant must prove, among

other things, that he or she is the worker's child. A claimant may

prove that he or she is the child of the worker in any of the following

four ways:

- The claimant could inherit the worker's property as the worker's

child under the law of intestate succession of the appropriate State.

See section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(1) .

- The claimant is the worker's natural child and the worker and the

claimant's mother or father went through a ceremony that would have

resulted in a valid marriage between them except for a "legal

impediment." See section 216(h)(2)(B) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(B); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(2) .

opriate State.

See section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(1) .

- The claimant is the worker's natural child and the worker and the

claimant's mother or father went through a ceremony that would have

resulted in a valid marriage between them except for a "legal

impediment." See section 216(h)(2)(B) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(B); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(2) .

- The claimant is the worker's natural child and, at the

appropriate time, the worker acknowledged in writing that the claimant

was the worker's child, was decreed by a court to be the claimant's

parent, or was ordered by a court to contribute to the claimant's

support because the claimant was the worker's child. See section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(3) .

- The claimant is shown by evidence satisfactory to us to be the

worker's natural child, and the worker was living with the claimant or

contributing to the claimant's support at the appropriate time. See

section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(4) .

The claimant could inherit the worker's property as the worker's

child under the law of intestate succession of the appropriate State.

See section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(1) .

The claimant is the worker's natural child and the worker and the

claimant's mother or father went through a ceremony that would have

resulted in a valid marriage between them except for a "legal

impediment." See section 216(h)(2)(B) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(B); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(2) .

The claimant is the worker's natural child and, at the

appropriate time, the worker acknowledged in writing that the claimant

was the worker's child, was decreed by a court to be the claimant's

parent, or was ordered by a court to contribute to the claimant's

support because the claimant was the worker's child. See section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(3) .

.

The claimant is the worker's natural child and, at the

appropriate time, the worker acknowledged in writing that the claimant

was the worker's child, was decreed by a court to be the claimant's

parent, or was ordered by a court to contribute to the claimant's

support because the claimant was the worker's child. See section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(3) .

The claimant is shown by evidence satisfactory to us to be the

worker's natural child, and the worker was living with the claimant or

contributing to the claimant's support at the appropriate time. See

section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(4) .

For purposes of this policy interpretation ruling,

paragraph 1 above is the State law definition of “child,”

and paragraphs 2 through 4 are the federal law definitions of

“child.” [1]

This policy interpretation ruling applies when the results of sibling

DNA testing show a high probability of a sibling relationship between a

child claimant (C2) and a child (C1) whom we have determined to be the

worker's child under one of the federal law definitions in section 216(h)(3) of the Act.

This Ruling addresses two questions:

- If C1 meets the requirements of section 216(h)(3) , must C1 also

meet the State law definition of child in order for us to use evidence

of the sibling relationship between C1 and C2 in determining whether C2

is the worker's child under section 216(h)(2)(A) ?

- For the purpose of determining whether C2 meets the state law

definition of child under section 216(h)(2)(A) ,

can we consider C1 to be

the worker's natural child, based on the determination of eligibility

under section 216(h)(3) ?

If C1 meets the requirements of section 216(h)(3) , must C1 also

meet the State law definition of child in order for us to use evidence

of the sibling relationship between C1 and C2 in determining whether C2

is the worker's child under section 216(h)(2)(A) ?

6(h)(2)(A) ,

can we consider C1 to be

the worker's natural child, based on the determination of eligibility

under section 216(h)(3) ?

If C1 meets the requirements of section 216(h)(3) , must C1 also

meet the State law definition of child in order for us to use evidence

of the sibling relationship between C1 and C2 in determining whether C2

is the worker's child under section 216(h)(2)(A) ?

For the purpose of determining whether C2 meets the state law

definition of child under section 216(h)(2)(A) ,

can we consider C1 to be

the worker's natural child, based on the determination of eligibility

under section 216(h)(3) ?

These questions are not explicitly addressed by either the statute or

our regulations. They have arisen because, in some cases, the evidence

used to establish that C1 is the worker's child under section 216(h)(3) of the Act might not satisfy the standard required to show that C1 is

the worker's child under state law. For example, under section 216(h)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the claimant must show “by evidence

satisfactory to the Commissioner” that the worker is the

claimant's parent and was “living with or contributing to the

support of” the claimant at the appropriate time. The State law

that we apply under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the

Act often provides for a

higher standard of proof (e.g., “clear and convincing

evidence”) to prove that a person is the child of the worker for

purposes of intestate succession.

POLICY INTERPRETATION:

he worker is the

claimant's parent and was “living with or contributing to the

support of” the claimant at the appropriate time. The State law

that we apply under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the

Act often provides for a

higher standard of proof (e.g., “clear and convincing

evidence”) to prove that a person is the child of the worker for

purposes of intestate succession.

POLICY INTERPRETATION:

Under our current policy interpretation, when we must determine whether

C2 qualifies as the worker's child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the

Act, we must apply the law of intestate succession that the courts of

the appropriate State (the State of the worker's domicile at the

appropriate time or the District of Columbia if the worker was not a

domiciliary of a State at the appropriate time) would apply to decide

whether C2 could inherit intestate property as the worker's child.

Under this ruling, we will continue to apply the above policy

interpretation. However, we will not review C1's relationship to the

worker under State law in determining C2's relationship to the worker

when:

- we have determined that C1 meets one of the federal

definitions of child in section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

- there is no reason to question that determination, and

- the results of DNA testing show a high probability

of a sibling relationship between C1 and C2.

we have determined that C1 meets one of the federal

definitions of child in section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

there is no reason to question that determination, and

the results of DNA testing show a high probability

of a sibling relationship between C1 and C2.

on to question that determination, and

- the results of DNA testing show a high probability

of a sibling relationship between C1 and C2.

we have determined that C1 meets one of the federal

definitions of child in section 216(h)(3) of the Act,

there is no reason to question that determination, and

the results of DNA testing show a high probability

of a sibling relationship between C1 and C2.

We will rely on the determination under section 216(h)(3) establishing

C1 as the natural child of the worker, for purposes of determining C2's

relationship to the worker under the requirements and standards of proof

provided in State law. We will consider C1 to be the known child of the

worker as determined under section 216(h)(3) .

Then, under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the

Act, we will apply the law of intestate succession

of the appropriate State to determine whether the results of the DNA

test between C1 and C2 (and any other evidence of C2's relationship to

the worker) establish C2's status as the worker's child.

This policy is supported by the relevant statutes. Under

section 205(a) of

the Act we have:

full power and authority to make rules and regulations to establish

procedures, not inconsistent with the provisions of this title, which

are necessary or appropriate to carry out such provisions, and shall

adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to regulate and

provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the

method of taking and furnishing the same in order to establish the right

to benefits hereunder.

(Emphasis added.) Under section 702(a)(5) of the Act, we

“may prescribe such rules and regulations as . . . [we

determine] necessary or appropriate to carry out the

functions of the Administration.”

The policy interpretation in this Ruling is consistent with the relevant

provisions of the Act and enhances the efficiency of the claims

adjudication process.

h the right

to benefits hereunder.

(Emphasis added.) Under section 702(a)(5) of the Act, we

“may prescribe such rules and regulations as . . . [we

determine] necessary or appropriate to carry out the

functions of the Administration.”

The policy interpretation in this Ruling is consistent with the relevant

provisions of the Act and enhances the efficiency of the claims

adjudication process.

Under the circumstances covered by this Ruling, our policy is consistent

with section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act because we will apply State law to

determine whether C2 is the worker's child. We will determine whether

the evidence relating to C2's relationship to the known child of the

worker (C1), and any other evidence of C2's relationship to the worker,

establishes that C2 is the worker's child under the standards of the

applicable State law. Moreover, the policy avoids the redundancy and

unnecessary administrative burden that would occur if we reviewed C1's

relationship to the worker under State law when we have already

determined that C1 is the worker's child under one of the federal

definitions in section 216(h)(3) of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This SSR is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

CROSS-REFERENCES:

Program Operations Manual System sections GN00306.050,

GN00306.055, GN00306.060, GN00306.065, GN00306.075,

GN00306.085, GN00306.100, GN00306.105, GN00306.110,

GN00306.120, GN00306.125, GN00306.130

[1] A claimant also may qualify as the worker's child by proving that he or

she is the legally adopted child, stepchild or equitably adopted child

of the worker, or that he or she is the grandchild or step-grandchild

of the worker or the worker's spouse. See section 216(e) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 416(e); 20 C.F.R. 404.356 - 404.359 . This ruling

does not address these relationships.