H married W in 1954 and separated from her shortly thereafter, never to live with her again.

W had four children born to her after H left her. The children were born in 1958, 1959, 1962 and 1964.

H died in 1964 while domiciled in the state of Michigan, fully insured for disability purposes.

Following H’s death, W applied for children’s insurance benefits for her four children based on H’s earnings record. She said there were different fathers for the children.

The question was whether or not the children were H’s children under social security law. This depended on whether they were his children, stepchildren or adopted children.

Since the children were not H’s adopted children nor his stepchildren, the question was whether or not they were his children.

In making this determination, Social Security follows the law of the state in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of his death — in this case Michigan. If the children were eligible to inherit from H under Michigan’s laws of intestate succession, then they would be considered his children for social security purposes.

Michigan law presumed that a child born during the marriage was the legitimate offspring of the marriage. Michigan also followed Lord Mansfield’s Rule, which prohibits the husband and wife from giving any testimony that would tend to show a child born during the marriage was not their legitimate offspring. Thus, wife’s statement that H was not likely the children’s father would have been inadmissible in Michigan courts, and was therefore disregarded by social security.

In Michigan, the presumption that a child born during a marriage was not the legitimate offspring of that marriage could only be rebutted by very convincing proof, amounting to a near certainty, that the husband could not have been the child’s father. Thus, if irrefutable proof showed that the husband could not possibly have had access to the wife during the relevant time period, or that husband was impotent, this would rebut the presumption of legitimacy.

With respect to the period of time to examine in determining husband’s non-access, Michigan courts took judicial notice of the fact that periods of human gestation are generally limited to a 300 day maximum and a 240 day minimum period.

Social Security obtained evidence that H was either incarcerated or hospitalized at the state mental hospital during the relevant time periods, and that W had never visited him.

Giving this very convincing evidence of H’s non-access during the relevant time periods, social security found that the presumption of legitimacy had been rebutted and that the children were not H’s children. Therefore, they were not entitled to children’s benefits based on H’s earnings record.

See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 67-11.

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