Plaintiff married Ashley King in 1945. Her daughter, Dorothy Richardson , gave birth to a female child named Stephanie in 1949. Dorothy obtained an annulment of her marriage to the child’s father, but the father never acknowledged the child as his own. Dorothy gave her he child to her mother and Ashley King to raise as their own child. However, there was no promise or bargain that plaintiff and Ashley would adopt the child.

Ashley listed the child as his own for purposes of obtaining group health and life insurance benefits through his employer.

The child’s birth certificate listed her biological father, from whom Dorothy had obtained an annulment of their marriage.

At the child’s Catholic christening the officiating priest spoke to Dorothy and had her sign a document that she would not interfere with the child’s upbringing.

The Kings attempted to register the child in school under their name, by because her birth certificate listed her last name as Richardson, she was registered as Stephanie Richardson.

The child called the Kings “Mommie” and “Daddie” and referred to Dorothy as her older sister.

When Stephanie was seven years old, the Kings consulted a lawyer about an adoption, but because of financial constraints, they did not pursue the adoption. They were also concerned that an adoption would “stir the pot” with Dorothy, so they abandoned the idea.

Ashley died on January 4th, 1960. His widow, Mrs. King, filed for social security mother’s and child’s benefits based on Ashley’s earnings record. She claimed that she and Ashley had “equitably adopted” the child.

Under social security’s regulations, whether a child is entitled to social security benefits on a deceased worker’s earnings record depends upon whether they would be considered the decedent’s child under the laws of the state in which the worker was domiciled at the time of his or her death. In this case, New York law applied, since Ashley had his domicile in New York at the time of his passing.

Under New York case law, it was clear that the legal doctrine of equitable adoption would not apply under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, Mrs. King was not entitled to mother’s insurance benefits and Stephanie was not entitled to child’s insurance benefits on Ashley’s earnings record.

However, Mrs. King would be entitled to widow’s social security benefits at age 62, if all other requirements were met.

See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 65-20c.

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.