Brandalynn Vernoff (KTLA-TV)
Posted on 06/20/2009 4:56:55 AM PDT by JoeProBono
A U.S. appeals court says the Los Angeles 10-year-old is not entitled to Social Security survivor payments because of California inheritance law and lack of evidence the father gave consent. A 10-year-old Los Angeles girl conceived with her dead father's frozen sperm is not entitled to his Social Security benefits, a federal appeals court panel has ruled.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a lower-court ruling that the child, Brandalynn Vernoff, was ineligible for the federal survivor payments under California law, which considers factors in addition to biology in determining inheritance rights. Brandalynn's father, Bruce Vernoff, died accidentally in July 1995.
Thirty hours after his death, his wife, Gabriela Vernoff, had a doctor extract his sperm and freeze it. She was impregnated with it in 1998 and gave birth to Brandalynn in 1999, said Wally Vernoff, Bruce Vernoff's father and an attorney representing the widow. She sought survivor benefits for her daughter from the Social Security Administration, but was rejected. Her claim was also turned away in U.S. District Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Brandalynn Vernoff (KTLA-TV)
Very cute little girl.
—
Strange circumstances-
Brandalynn’s father, Bruce Vernoff, died accidentally in July 1995. Thirty hours after his death, his wife, Gabriela Vernoff, had a doctor extract his sperm and freeze it. She was impregnated with it in 1998 and gave birth to Brandalynn in 1999.
Yeah, but the government falls all over itself to give bennies to illegal aliens!
I always try to learn one new thing or fact a day-and now I have met my quota for today even before the first cup of coffee is finished!!
I had no idea it could stay viable for that long after one assumed room temperature!
Yet another court, in a similar case, ruled that a child conceived around 20 years after the father’s death COULD lay claim to and inherit his estate! LOL. I think it was in California.
Now if that mother had wanted to kill the little girl, that'd been OK by them I am sure.
My first reaction was that the child should be entitled. After all - why would the father have his sperm frozen!!
But, as I read further - the father did NOT do this.. the mother did.
In the case you cite - it's obvious the father did intend on his sperm being used to father a chlld, since he had his sperm frozen 20 years earlier.
It doesn't appear to me that these cases are similar.
Cute kid. But why did the mother choose to have a child that she couldn’t support? It’s not like it was a wild night out with hubby or anything. I smell deliberate effort to get govt goodies.
So by this logic - If I have a one night stand that results in a child, it’s not my problem because I didn’t intend it?
I thought the rule was: you have a child, you own it. Works or me, but it does imply that fortune follows genetics. I’m thinking that if I father a child, willing or no, it’s my kid and my kid gets my stuff.
I’m interested in hearing your argument.
I thought the rule was: you have a child, you own it. Works or me, but it does imply that fortune follows genetics. I’m thinking that if I father a child, willing or no, it’s my kid and my kid gets my stuff.
I’m interested in hearing your argument"
Simple!! You can't give consent, have any one night stands or father a child, by your own choice, when you're dead.
It seems very simple to me why they rejected it, or at least why they SHOULD have rejected it. He was dead. Any child conceived after the fathers death really can’t be his, or at least should not receive “survivior’s benefits” because the kid is not a true “survivor” of the parent.
Good point.
If you have a one night stand, you are getting into it with the knowledge that a child might results and you have weighted that risk and decided to take that risk.
This man was dead, so he had no consent in the issue at all.
Biological children are biological children irrespective of the death of the parent. DNA doesn't care how you set your clocks.
The whole issue turns on the question of eligibility of the “widow” ~ and does she care for a child under 16. Notice that they have special rules for “divorced” widows ~ which suggests that as far as Social Security is concerned the “eligibility clock” continues on long after the “death of the marriage”. The intent of the rule writers is clear ~ the lawyer who handled this case should have given me a call first ~ he’d had the 9th Circus standing on their heads. I ain’t even started on this stuff ~ http://www.ssa.gov/ww&os2.htm
I second that. Survivor is the key word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.