Last week, I blogged about the Ninth Circuit decision in Vernoff v. Astrue, which upheld the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) denial of child survivor benefits to Brandalynn Vernoff, a 10-year-old Los Angeles girl conceived from the frozen sperm of a dead man. Now, it appears that another case involving the rights of posthumously-created offspring to claim SSI benefits is making its way through the court system. According to the Des Moines Register, Patti Beeler has lost an appeals process through the SSA, which denied survivor benefits to her six-year-old daughter. Beeler has now filed suit in federal court challenging the decision. In contrast to the Vernoff case, in which the sperm was extracted posthumously and without any indication of consent by the father to the procedure, Bruce Beeler banked sperm prior to the start of chemotherapy treatments, which often cause sterility, so that the couple could have children after he recovered. However, Beeler did not recover, and after his death Patti Beeler used IVF to conceive using Bruce's previously-banked sperm.
In looking through the secondary literature, it seems as if there’s been some amount of writing on the legal issues surrounding these cases, but I haven’t come across a whole lot yet on the broader policy issues surrounding them. In other words, what are the policy consequences of allowing, or not, posthumously-created offspring to claim SSI survivor benefits? Should it matter (again as a matter of public policy) whether the sperm was extracted posthumously or not? So, gentle readers, please post your thoughts, reactions, sources, and reading recommendations in the comments . . . so that I can steal your ideas and turn them into a law review article.
I would think there'd be a lot of focus on the policy of ssi survivor benefits. I'd thought we had a strong policy in favor of providing support for minor children whose father or mother (or both) had passed away. And I thought that was also one of the benefits of paying social security--it's partly an insurance plan to pay to our children.
Posted by: Alfred | June 30, 2009 at 09:20 AM
Right. But these are not children whose parents passed away. They are children conceived after the passing of the parent. Not at all obvious to me how supporting the creation of *intentionally* fatherless (or motherless) children fits within the broader SSI policy goal. It's possible that it does, which is why I'm trolling for input here. But it seems to me that more is required to prove the point than reference to the underlying SSI policy objective of providing support for children that have lost a parent.
Posted by: Kim Krawiec | June 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM
If the people could not support the kids that they brought into the world intentionally "fatherless/motherless" then they should not have done it.
I am just mystified that people can spend great sums of money to create the children, but then have to rely on public assistance to support them.
I am sure it wasn't cheap to fertilize and implant the embryos into someone's womb. Also, octomom, I am looking at you.
In a similar type case, I can't believe the court allowed, I believe it was a man's mother to harvest her dead son's sperm because he had expressed an interest in having kids one day.
I know it was better for the court to error on the side of harvesting, but if someone fought the court order, would they then destroy the sperm?
I mean, he did not even have a significant other, it was his mom!
Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
You couldn't donate someone's dead body without the proper paperwork, but you can harvest their gametes posthumously and make a person from them?! No written permission needed????
Posted by: H. Hudson | July 02, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Hey H -- I haven't seen this case of the mother harvesting her dead son's sperm. Do you have a case citation, or party name, or even the state in which it occurred? I'd like to read that one.
Posted by: Kim Krawiec | July 03, 2009 at 02:31 PM
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/08/0408evans.html
Here you go, I only wish I had misremembered the facts.
Yeah, now she has a chance to have a grandson! Oh goody.
What are your thoughts on this case?
Posted by: H. Hudson | July 03, 2009 at 08:56 PM
Wow. Thanks for posting this, H. I admit that these fact patterns bother me, which is one reason I started looking into them. This will be useful. If you come across any others feel free to come back and post them here -- I'll keep an eye on the comments.
Posted by: Kim Krawiec | July 04, 2009 at 07:39 PM