Is A Baby Conceived After Dad's Death A 'Survivor'?

mikajoanow

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148453252/is-a-baby-conceived-after-dads-death-a-survivor?sc=fb&cc=fp


I thought of you guys after I read this article this morning. What do you think?

NightOwl1

Hmmm... This is in an interesting scenario. I'm going to have to agree with the state in denying the claim. I think that if the baby is conceived after the death of their biological parent, they should not be eligible for survivor benefits. Survivor benefits for children are supposed to help cover expenses for existing children so they don't suffer from financial hardhsip due to their loss. But if you make the decision to conceive children after you have lost one of the biological parents, you need to make that decision with your financial situation in mind. If she couldn't afford to support additional children, she shouldn't have decided to go through with IVF.

The children wouldn't be entitled to survivor benefits if they were conceived using a sperm donor who passed away, and the father is basically filling that same role in this case.

dragonbait0126

I'm very on the fence about this one. In this case, both parents had made the decision to have other children. It was planned and this was the entire reason the father saved him sperm to begin with. On the other hand, while yes there is a biological connection between the child and the deceased, if the parent is dead, is the parent any more than just a sperm donor? The child didn't actually "survive" the parent since they weren't even conceived until after the parent was deceased. But I don't know that in this case the child should be denied benefits. I guess it raises the question, if you go to a bank and select a random donor to have a child, and the child later decides to get in touch with their biological father, and the fater then dies, does that child receive benefits?

fbmandy55

Good topic, I would say in this case the father planned on having the child, he had his sperm frozen to make that child, it should still be considered a survivor.

I didn't read the article but how are these benfits working? I'm not knowledgable about survivor benefits but does the mother get MORE for having a dependant?

MikeSEA

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to grant benefits if the "survivor" didn't exist until after the death. I'm not sure if it even matters if a couple were trying to conceive before death. If conception takes place after death, then they had a choice to not have a child and create a need for the benefits. It seems as if survivor benefits are about helping people when death takes a loved one sans choice. Maybe this is just my weird brain, but it seems like you're just trying to spite death for ruining your life's plans at that point. I guess people are welcome to do that, but I'm not sure they should get benefits for it.

Something about it seems like scamming the system.

nehtaeh

Good topic, I would say in this case the father planned on having the child, he had his sperm frozen to make that child, it should still be considered a survivor.

I didn't read the article but how are these benfits working? I'm not knowledgable about survivor benefits but does the mother get MORE for having a dependant?

Yes, if a parent dies before his or her dependents reach the age of 18 then social security benefits are paid to the child. If you look at your statements from SS it will tell you how much your children or spouse will receive in the event of your death.

castadiva

Very, very tricky. I agree with the sentence about medical and scientific change outpacing legislative movement. The Congress of 1939 could hardly have expected a situation like this to arise!

My feeling is that as the parents made deliberate plans and took actions intended to ensure they could still have children in the event that the husband became infertile after cancer treatment (and knowing there was a good chance that he might die as a result of his illness), then these twins probably should be entitled to Survivor benefits. If the parents hadn't taken these specific actions intended to create children as a part of their family at a later date, the situation wouldn't exist. If the father's life had been further prolonged by treatment, and the twins had been conceived and/or born while he was still alive, as was the stated intent, and had subsequently died, there would be no question about their entitlement. They are the biological children of both parties to this marriage, one of whom is unfortunately deceased. When they were conceived seems of relatively little relevance to me, given the clear intent and planning that went into their conception.

MikeSEA

I'm a big believer in Social Security benefits. I'm happy to have my tax dollars fund a safety net for widows and orphans because I think that's important.

However, when someone chooses to make a crappy situation worse--worse in terms of finances because that's what we're talking about--I'm less happy about tax dollars funding that choice. The safety net wouldn't be required but by her own, informed choice.

castadiva

I didn't get the impression from the article that she needed the survivor benefits just to get by, but that she had (fairly reasonably, I would have thought) assumed that her husband's biological children born after his death, through earlier, during-life planning, were entitled to the same support as his other child, born before his death. Maybe I've misunderstood. I suspect my compassion for this woman's situation is getting in the way of my reason - I empathise with her desire to see through the plans she and her husband had made before his death, as well as what I assume is her wish to have another part of him in her life, as he was taken from her much sooner than she might reasonably have expected.

bhalter

Hmmm... This is in an interesting scenario. I'm going to have to agree with the state in denying the claim. I think that if the baby is conceived after the death of their biological parent, they should not be eligible for survivor benefits. Survivor benefits for children are supposed to help cover expenses for existing children so they don't suffer from financial hardhsip due to their loss. But if you make the decision to conceive children after you have lost one of the biological parents, you need to make that decision with your financial situation in mind. If she couldn't afford to support additional children, she shouldn't have decided to go through with IVF.

The children wouldn't be entitled to survivor benefits if they were conceived using a sperm donor who passed away, and the father is basically filling that same role in this case.

I agree. I understand the situation, but she should have made her decision to carry on with having more children based on if she could financially handle that herself without raising them on their dead father's SS.

ojell

That's a tough one.