Dead Man's Sperm Gives Life, Not Benefits

[16th ave.]

Dead Man's Sperm Gives Life, Not Benefits - CBS News

Dead Man's Sperm Gives Life, Not Benefits
L.A. Girl Conceived From Dead Man's Sperm Cannot Receive His Social Security Benefits, Court Rules (AP) A 10-year-old girl conceived from the frozen sperm of a dead man cannot receive his Social Security benefits, a federal appeals court ruled.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower court's rejection of child survivor benefits for Brandalynn Vernoff, who was born nearly four years after her father's death in 1995.

The case involved sperm that Bruce Vernoff's widow, Gabriela, had a doctor extract after he died unexpectedly from an allergic reaction. In 1998, she used it for in vitro fertilization and gave birth to Brandalynn in a Los Angeles hospital on March 17, 1999.

Gabriela Vernoff later applied for child survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration but was rejected. A federal judge in Santa Ana also rejected her claims.

The appellate panel ruled that while there was an "undisputed biological relationship" between Brandalynn and her father, the girl was not a dependent at the time of his death as defined by Social Security regulations and by California law on the establishment of paternity.

The three-judge panel noted that California law only grants inheritance rights to children conceived within one year after a parent has died. The ruling also said there was no evidence that Vernoff consented to his wife's artificial insemination, which under state law would be required to establish his paternity.

Gabriela Vernoff "has not provided any evidence of consent to the conception by the insured or his willingness to support Brandalynn," the ruling said.

A message left for the widow's attorney was not immediately returned Thursday.


What do you think? & I wonder was the sperm frozen before or after the father died of the allergic reaction?

[fallon]

the way I read it the wife had it taken out and frozen after his death...if that's the case I agree with the courts ruling here

[16th ave.]

slap me silly and call me a billy goat. i don't know how i missed it. and i read the article too!. lol

i agree w/the ruling too. think it would be different if the donor had had the stuff frozen b4 he passed.

[fallon]

oh I agree, had the sperm been frozen before he died I think the baby should be intitled to benefits

[16th ave.]

i keep getting the thought that we will see quite a bit of this sort of thing due to the economy and health care system. i know the folks weren't thinking that way when they "did the deed". but some of them wont be able to help themselves.
just a thought.

[IADad]

Originally Posted by fallon

oh I agree, had the sperm been frozen before he died I think the baby should be intitled to benefits

hmmm, as much as I'd like to see any child born following such sad circimstances recieve benefits, I don't think it would matter when the sperm was frozen. I'm guessing that the legal definition hinges on when the child is born. A child can't "survive" a parent if they aren't born before the parent dies, i.e. they don't exist, therefore aren't their child while they're alive, and thus can't "survive" them.

It definitely seems like a fuzzy area that technology may have outpaced. But it's also an areaa frought with potential for abuse. Theoretically, someone could sell dead guy sperm and the recpients who use it to create a child could, so they could "stick" the government (and thereby us) with a bill for 18 years of survivor benefits that they have "purchased."

[fallon]

you're right IADad. As much as I think the baby should be intitled to benefits I'm not sure how you would go about policing the issue...like you mentioned selling the sperm. Maybe something in a will stating he froze his sperm for the purpose of creating a child with "mary" (or whoever)....I don't know...I guess it's hard to judge here. I mean I would never have a child if the only way I could afford it was to collect benefits. It's just not something that would cross my mind

[16th ave.]

yep.

[zeitgeist]

Theoretically, someone could sell dead guy sperm and the recpients who use it to create a child could, so they could "stick" the government (and thereby us) with a bill for 18 years of survivor benefits that they have "purchased."

No, I don't think the situation you're suggesting could be deemed similar enough to this one to hold water. This woman loved her husband and wanted to keep a part of him alive. She did. Good for her.

It's not the child's fault that she was born so long after her father's death, but it would appear that according to the law she can be denied her father's benefits.

I hate that it's that way. It's soulless, it's heartless, and it's being nasty to a baby girl who isn't even aware of what's going on... but they're within their rights to be soulless heartless and nasty.

[IADad]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

No, I don't think the situation you're suggesting could be deemed similar enough to this one to hold water. This woman loved her husband and wanted to keep a part of him alive. She did. Good for her.

and I think we're both agrreeing, actually. I agree that it's heartless. My point was if you try to fix the inequity, you'd have to do it in law and you'd have to put some definition in to modify the definition of what a survivor is. I'm just saying that isn't an easy thing to do because it would open the door ofr abuse and I think we're both realistic enough to know that once a loophole is available there is somebody souless and heartless enough to take advantage of it, thus ruining it for those who really need it.