SCOTUS: No benies for twins conceived after dad died

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
14,163
No benies for twins conceived after dad died says SCOTUS ...UNANIMOUSLY.

Yeah, I agree.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a man's children who were conceived through artificial insemination after his death cannot get Social Security survivor benefits.
Justices unanimously ruled that twins born to Robert Capato's surviving wife Karen did not qualify for survivor benefits because of a requirement that the federal government use state inheritance laws.
The Capato twins, conceived using Robert Capato's frozen sperm, were born 18 months after their father died of esophageal cancer. Karen Capato's application for survivor benefits on behalf of the twins was rejected by the Social Security Administration, which said Robert Capato needed to be alive during the children's conception to qualify. A federal judge agreed, saying they had to qualify as Capato's children before his death or qualify under state inheritance law as children who could legally inherit.
Capato died a Florida resident, and Florida law expressly bars children conceived posthumously from inheritance, unless they are named in a will. The only beneficiaries named in Capato's will are his wife, their son and his two children from a previous marriage.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/twins-conceived-dad-died-wont-143716970.html
 
This is a good one. I am quite torn. Part of me is against the ruling as I would want my children to get my benefits if my wife were to do this in the event of my untimely death. However, I side with the court on the ruling because it keeps people who went the AI route with donor sperm to have a way to ask for benefits when the donor has no want nor desire to be a part of the offspring's life.
Why I don't want to be a justice of the Supreme Court.
 
Precious Roy said:
This is a good one. I am quite torn. Part of me is against the ruling as I would want my children to get my benefits if my wife were to do this in the event of my untimely death. However, I side with the court on the ruling because it keeps people who went the AI route with donor sperm to have a way to ask for benefits when the donor has no want nor desire to be a part of the offspring's life.
Why I don't want to be a justice of the Supreme Court.

This is actually an easy one for the Court. They're just upholding a law already on the books. On it's face the Florida law seems unfair but you have to draw the line somewhere.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top