Friday Legal Updates - Posthumous Conception and Social Security & Conference Reminder
Well, it is Friday again - TGIF to everyone. Not alot on the legal front this week, despite the continuous chatter about the IVF blunders over in the UK, as I commented on this week in my blog entitled Embryo Mix-Up, Resulting Abortion, and Adequate Justice?. But, I do not want to beat a dead horse, so today's singular topic is sperm donation.
California - The Ninth Circuit has determined that posthumous conception DOES NOT entitle one to survivor benefits. In a case involving a 10 year old girl, her mother was trying to get Social Security Survivor Benefits for the girl who was conceived via sperm extracted from her just deceased husband in 1995.
"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday the child, Brandalynn Vernoff, was not dependent on her father at the time of his death. In California, dependency is determined by the parent-child relationship rather than the marital status of the parents, according to the decision."
Further, the article stated, "
James Raetz, one of Gabriela Vernoff’s attorneys, said California has a system set up to protect sperm bank donors, and this case is an unintended consequence of the law.
Bruce Vernoff’s sperm was removed after his death, and there was no evidence of plans for a birth after the father’s death, according to court documents.
“That’s the big distinction,” Raetz said. “The court really hung on that.”
However, Raetz said, the couple did have plans for a baby.
“No matter what, she’s a single mom trying to raise her daughter,” he said."
Interestingly, I did not in another blog on this issue, that in Arizona the result may have been different.
"In California, dependency is determined by the parent-child relationship rather than the marital status of the parents, according to the decision."
"While her appeal was pending, the Ninth Circuit decided Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 371 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2004), which held that a set of posthumously-conceived twins were the deemed dependents of their biological father and entitled to survivor benefits.
The administration subsequently issued an “acquiescence ruling” to the decision, noting that in the Ninth Circuit a child must be biologically related to the insured and the insured's child under applicable state law to be a deemed dependent.
Writing for the appellate court yesterday, Senior Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall explained that Gillett-Netting was based on Arizona state law, which recognizes "[e]very child [as] the legitimate child of its natural parents," but that California law does not equate natural parent status with biological parenthood."
"So, Gabriela tried to invoke "equal protection". After all, Bandalynn would have "rights" in Arizona she doesn't have in California, and other children in California get survivor benefits, but the court didn't go for it. "
What are your thoughts on this one?
Also, don't forget about registering for our conference - Erickson Law and Conceptual Options, a Center for Surrogacy & Egg Donation Announces European Conference on Surrogacy & Egg Donation at http://www.surrogacy-eggdonation.com/geneve.convention.html
