Should boy, born 3 years after dad’s death, get Social Security?

Here is a case that pushes moral, ethical, medical, scientific, and political concerns, into a legal mash-up that's sure to tie up court calendars and become a hotly debated issue, for a long time (and could have been posted under any number of different topics).

 

From the Headlines -

　

Should boy born 3 years after dad’s death get Social Security?

 

In a highly unusual case, the Utah Supreme Court is considering the rights of a child born to a man who died three years earlier.

 

By brooke adams - The Salt Lake Tribune  -  Updated Jul 12, 2010 08:10PM

 

There is no question that Ian Burns is the son of Michael Burns.

 

But did Michael intend to father a child nearly three years after his own death from cancer?

 

For his wife Gayle, there is no doubt.

 

But for the Social Security Administration, which is fighting her efforts to get survivor’s benefits for their son, the answer is no.

 

 

(Gayle Burns holds her son Ian in their home in Murray Wednesday Jun 30, 2010. Burns' husband Michael died after cancer treatment in 2001. Before undergoing therapy, Michael stored sperm because the treatments made him sterile. After he died, Gayle conceived a son — Ian — who was born in 2003. She is fighting to get Ian recognized as MIchael's son so he can receive Social Security survivor's benefits. The case is at the Utah Supreme Court, and is the first case of its type in the state. The issue has also been raised in other states. Steve Griffin | The Salt Lake Tribune)

___________________________________________________________________

 

Now the Utah Supreme Court is entering the debate in a first-of its-kind case here, though the issue has been debated in a handful of other states.

 

The justices are poised to answer two questions: Is a signed sperm donor agreement evidence of a man’s desire to become a father, even after his death? And is that child then his legal heir? Continue reading . . .

[ http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49775477-76/michael-gayle-ian-utah.html.csp ]

 

Please note that the religious asshats haven't even begun to weigh in on this one yet.

 

Tags: Ethics, Insurance, Legal-heir, Medical, Moral, Paternity, Political, Science, Social-Security, Survivorship

Views: 18

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 13, 2010 at 12:06am
(OK - Had to change that title.)
Permalink Reply by funk Q on July 13, 2010 at 12:34am
Why not? He is the biological child of both parents and should just be treated as any other posthumous child.

I know, too simplistic, reasonable and easy but I don't stand to make anything out of it.
Permalink Reply by Roy The Infidel on July 13, 2010 at 1:36am
Agreed.

At the outset, the SSA's position is weak. If "intent" of the deceased husband is their only issue then it is obviously moot, IMO. The reason one saves his sperm is simple - depository for future offspring. The wife is the legitimate mother. It's a solid case from a uniquely solid family unit.
Permalink Reply by §kürrý on July 17, 2010 at 1:39pm
DNRTA

I can assume that the reason that this is a debate at all is because with SS it's basically a public benefit and is passed on to the child when one dies unexpectedly. The difference in this case is that the father had been dead before conception and therefore the mother had an actual choice to have the child without a living father. She was aware of the lifestyle and financial position and wasn't suddenly put into the position of single parent.

One could argue that someone might then get pregnant just to gain benefits. I am going to vote "neigh" on this one.

FYI, I am not familiar with SS benefits and how they work.
Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 17, 2010 at 11:38pm
I'm afraid I agree - and your insights into the mother's choice very cogent.

SS is basically run like an insurance policy, and with sufficient 'stores' in the freezer, you could keep collecting SS in perpituity, by poppin' a kid every few years.

RSS

Members

Blog Posts

HM responses

Posted by Debra Stevenson on May 21, 2013 at 8:10pm 7 Comments

John Moriarty
Ayn Rand, is my hero.

Come together one and all

Posted by Holli Clay on May 21, 2013 at 6:53pm 0 Comments

Hello fellow atheists!  I have joined this site in an attempt to find other rational individuals, such as myself, and to promote a current charity drive that I am trying to get going for the Oklahoma tornado victims.  I have managed to get many groups from around my area, including the Beyond Belief Foundation to back me on this endeavor. 

I am located in Newnan, Ga and have my own atheist group entitled "Coweta County Atheists".  I am currently being backed by Spaulding Co.…

Continue

Pope's 'exorcism' caught on film video

Posted by Debra Stevenson on May 21, 2013 at 2:37pm 0 Comments

There is a video of the Pope's 'exorcism' caught on film.  The man isn't demon possessed, there are likely no 'real' demons.  He's just delusional and doesn't want to accept personal responsiblity for his own behavior for his own dysfunctional life.

 

Brandi Amari Williams

Do you support 'traditional' marriage, vot now ad

Posted by Debra Stevenson on May 21, 2013 at 2:28pm 2 Comments

There is an ad that reads ' Do you support 'traditional' marriage? Vote Now"!  .

 

 

No, I don't support 'traditional' marriage because there is no such thing. I support heterosexual and same-sex couples marry each other legally , yes.  'Traditional' marriage promoters largely do not believe that heterosexual women are co-equal to their husbands.  Their only purpose in 'traditional' marriage is to sexually satisfy their husbands if they can and raise children and do all…

Continue

Events

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service