Share this article

print logo

Court rules on survivor's benefits; 'Posthumous' kids at heart of case

A widow who conceived a baby from the sperm of her late husband is not automatically entitled to Social Security survivor's benefits to help raise the child, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 9-0 decision rejected the claim that a biological child of a married couple, even one born years after the father died, always qualifies as his survivor under the Social Security Act.

Instead, the justices upheld the government's multipart definition of who deserves survivors benefits. One requirement is that a "natural child" is one who is entitled to inherit the father's property under state law.

"Tragic circumstances gave rise to this case," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noting that Robert Capato died of cancer in Florida in 2002 before he and his wife, Karen, could have the family they envisioned. He deposited sperm in a sperm bank after he got sick.

About 18 months after his death, his widow gave birth to twins who were conceived through in-vitro fertilization. She sought survivors' benefits for the two children. She argued that since they were the children of a married father, they should receive benefits he had earned.

The Social Security Administration said it was sympathetic, but it rejected her claim nonetheless. It pointed to regulations that define a "natural child" as one who "could inherit" the father's property under state law. Under Florida law, "children conceived after a parent's death" are not entitled to inherit his property, Ginsburg said. The children were not named in his will.

Ginsburg said the court was obliged to follow the law as Congress wrote it. Her opinion in Astrue v. Capato said the result might well be different in other states. In California, "posthumously conceived children" can inherit property "if the child is in utero within two years of a parent's death," she said. The laws in Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana and North Dakota have similar provisions, she said.

In a second decision, the court made it harder for illegal immigrants to avoid deportation by arguing their immigrant parents had obtained legal status as lawful U.S. residents.

One provision in federal immigration law permits leniency for an illegal immigrant who faces possible deportation but who had been granted lawful residence status for at least five years. Until Monday, it was unclear whether undocumented children could take advantage of their parent's legal status.

The issue arises sometimes when illegal immigrants are charged with a crime that could subject them to deportation. In a 9-0 decision, the court agreed with the government and ruled individuals must earn their own leniency through years of lawful residence. A parent's legal residence is not transferred to his child, the court said in Holder v. Martinez-Gutierrez.

The ruling reverses the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which was alone in adopting the more liberal rule that allowed children to take advantage of their parent's legal status.