SSA issues rule on the impact of DNA testing in sibling cases

The Social Security Administration has issued a ruling on establishing a parent-child relationship when a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test shows a sibling relationship between a claimant and a child of the worker who is entitled to Child's Insurance Benefits (CIB) under Social Security Act ­216(h)(3).

The new ruling, Social Security Ruling 06-02p, provides that if the results of DNA testing show a high probability that an entitled child is the sibling of a child claimant who is filing for benefits under the state law definition of ``child'' and the SSA has already determined that the entitled child is the worker's natural child under one of the two federal law definitions in ­216(h)(3), the SSA will rely on the ­216(h)(3) determination when it determines whether the child claimant is the worker's child in accordance with ­216(h)(2)(A) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the ruling states that the agency will not determine whether the child who is entitled under one of the federal law definitions in ­216(h)(3) also meets the definition of ``child'' under state law.

Background

Entitlement to Child's Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act requires, among other things, that the claimant be a child of an insured worker. The relationship may be proven in any one of four ways:

1. The claimant could inherit the worker's property under the law of intestate succession of the appropriate state (SSA ­216(h)(2)(A));

2. The claimant is the worker's natural child and the worker and the claimant's mother went through a marriage ceremony that would have been valid but for a legal impediment (SSA ­216(h)(2)(B));

3. The claimant is the worker's natural child and was so acknowledged, in writing, by the worker or was decreed by a court to be the worker's child or the worker was ordered by a court to contribute to the claimant's support because the claimant was the worker's child; or

4. The claimant is shown by evidence satisfactory to the SSA to be the worker's natural child, and the worker was living with the claimant or contributing to the claimant's support at the appropriate time (SSA ­216(h)(3)).

According to the SSA's announcement, the ruling addresses two questions:

1. If the child who has already been determined to be the worker's child meets the requirements of ­216(h)(3), must that child also meet the state law definition of ``child'' in order for the SSA to use evidence of the sibling relationship between both children in determining whether the second child (who is shown by a DNA test to be a sibling of the first child) is the worker's child under the state law definition?

2. For the purpose of determining whether the second, DNA-tested child, meets the state law definition of ``child'' under ­216(h)(2)(A), can the SSA consider the child previously found to be eligible under ­216(h)(3) to be the worker's natural child, based on the prior determination of eligibility under ­216(h)(3)?

These questions are not explicitly addressed by either the statute or the SSA's regulations. According to the announcement, they have arisen because, in some cases, the evidence used to establish that the child previously determined to be the worker's child under ­216(h)(3) of the Act might not satisfy the standard required to show that that child is the worker's child under state law.

Ruling confirms eligibility determination will not be reviewed Under SSR 06-02p, if a child has been found to be a worker's child under ­216(h)(3) and, if there is no reason to question the determination, if another child must qualify for Child's Insurance Benefits as a child of the same worker under a state's laws of intestate succession (­216(h)(2)(A)), and if DNA testing shows a high probability that both children are siblings, the SSA will not review under state law the paternity of the child qualifying for benefits under ­216(h)(3).

The SSA's ruling became effective on June 13, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 34186).