No (Social Security) Benefits For LA Girl Born From Dead Man's Sperm

[Kadie]

Jun 18, 2009 12:11 pm US/Pacific

No Benefits For LA Girl Born From Dead Man's Sperm


A 10-year-old girl conceived from the frozen sperm of a dead man cannot receive his Social Security benefits, a federal appeals court ruled.

On Wednesday, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's rejection of child survivor benefits for Brandalynn Vernoff, who was born nearly four years after her father's death.

The case involved sperm that Bruce Vernoff's widow, Gabriela, had a doctor extract after he died suddenly in 1995. She used it for in vitro fertilization and gave birth to Brandalynn in a Los Angeles hospital on March 17, 1999.

She later applied for child survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration but was rejected. A federal judge in Santa Ana also rejected her claims.

snip...
The appellate panel ruling said that while there was an "undisputed biological relationship" between Brandalynn and her father, the girl was not a dependent at the time of his death as defined by Social Security regulations and by California law on the establishment of paternity.

The three-judge panel noted that California law only grants inheritance rights to children conceived within one year after the parent has died. The ruling also said there was no evidence that Vernoff consented to his wife's artificial insemination, which under state law would be required to establish his paternity.

http://cbs13.com/watercooler/postmortem.sperm.benefits.2.1050365.html

[robinlynne]

1. makes sense to me.

[MercutioATC]

2. Agreed.

Survivor benefits were designed to provide for people who depended on the beneficiary for support.

This child didn't exist (even as a zygote) at the time of the beneficiary's death.

[DesertFlower]

4. exactly. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. It does make sense, especially since the sperm were obtained post mortem. She would have had a

better case if the embryos were created prior to his death because he obviously then gave his consent to use the sperm.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. Didn't Jan & Dean have a song called "Dead Man's Sperm"?

eom

[XanaDUer]

15. Um, no

It was "Dead Man's Curve". But I like your mind. :D

[MADem]

6. She is not a "survivor." She wasn't even here when he died.

California law is kind of strange, with that "one year" business. I could see them saying three months, because of questions about date of conception, but one year seems a bit, I don't know...arbitrary?

[Statistical]

8. 3 months? You mean 9 months.

Someone has sex then dies next week.

Baby is coming in.... 9 months.
9 months after the death.

I guess they went with a year to avoid an issue where.

Say it is 9 months.

So 20 DEC is the 9 month cut off but the baby is late.
Do we really want to induce labor early just so the baby is born by a cut off.

I didn't think the law was as compassionate as it is.

1 year is nice round number, makes sense and provides security for newborns.

[Kadie]

10. The law talks about when the child was conceived, not when born.

"California law only grants inheritance rights to children conceived within one year after the parent has died."

I thought that was kind of strange.

[Statistical]

12. OH!. Now that is weird. n/t

[old mark]

14. Hey, it IS California, after all.......nt

[MADem]

17. That's why I was cutting 'em some slack! nt

[Kaleva]

20. Necrophilia anyone?

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. So if this had been a frozen embryo concieved in the first year, but not planted until the third

Then the kid would have been eligible?

[Kadie]

23. Not sure.

Is the definition of 'conceived' when an embryo is created or when an actual pregnancy occurs?


:shrug:

[DavidDvorkin]

7. In that case, what would happen if a husband

died suddenly, right after inseminating his wife in the standard way. And he thought she was on the pill. And he had told many people that he never wanted kids.

The same logic would apply, but surely there would be outrage if a court ruled the same way in such a case.

[Statistical]

9. It wouldn't be a court case the law provides a window of 1 year from the death.

The three-judge panel noted that California law only grants inheritance rights to children conceived within one year after the parent has died.

[DavidDvorkin]

18. Ah, okay. Thanks.

[Horse with no Name]

11. Sorry, I can agree with this ruling

I can certainly appreciate that this woman wanted a child with the man she loved. I can also appreciate the fact that this child has needs, however, I don't think Social Security should pay for them.

[Blue_Tires]

13. is it just me?

or am i the only one wondering why a woman is fighting for SS benefits for a 10-year-old?? this case probably cost as much in legal/appeal fees as it would have had it paid out, right?

[MADem]

16. Because she just found the payday possibility, is my guess.

Maybe she got one of those lawyers who takes their cut out of the settlement?

"If we don't win, you don't PAY!"

[JI7]

19. completely agree with this ruling , and isn't in vitro expensive ?

so why is she looking for social security benefits ?

[KittyWampus]

22. Taking sperm or ovum from a cadaver is literally rape.