R separated from his wife D in 1950. During the separation, R fathered two illegitimate children. Under Ohio law at the time, the illegitimate children were not considered to be R’s legal children (presumably, this law has changed by now — the U..S. Supreme Court case of Trimble v. Gordon, decided in 1977, struck down an Illinois inheritance statute that allowed illegitimate children to inherit by intestate succession only from their mother’s).

R and D got back together in 1959.

R became disabled and was awarded social security disability insurance benefits beginning in May 1960.

In September 1964 R and D adopted R’s children pursuant to a Decree of Adoption entered in the state of Ohio, where they were domiciled.

On October 15th 1965 an application was made on behalf of the two children for children’s social security benefits based on R’s earnings record.

Two questions were presented: 1) whether, under Ohio law, a person may “adopt” his or her own illegitimate child, and 2) whether the time of filing an application for children’s insurance benefits can be used as the point of time for establishing whether the child was dependent upon his natural father who adopted him and was receiving social security disability insurance benefits.

Ohio law neither specifically provided for adopting one’s own illegitimate child nor prohibited it. The Ohio Adoption statute merely defined “child” very broadly as an individual under twenty-one years of age. Similar statutes in other states allowed a person to adopt his or her own illegitimate child. It was therefore concluded that Ohio law allowed R to adopt his own illegitimate children

Under Social Security regulations, a legally adopted child may only receive child’s insurance benefits based on a parent’s disability if the child was adopted by such individual within twenty-four months from the month in which the person first became entitled to disability benefits.

However, this section did not apply because the children were the natural children of R, the disabled individual.

It was held that the children were entitled to children’s disability benefits because their adoption by R gave them the status of “child” under the South Security Act and enabled them to meet the dependency requirement as of the date of the application for benefits. R’s Wife, D, was entitled to wife’s social security benefits because she was under the age of 62 and had in her care a child who was entitled to child’s benefits based on R’s earnings record.

See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 66-14.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.