Title II: Adjudicating Child Relationship Under Section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act When Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Test Shows Sibling Relationship Between Claimant and a Child of the Worker Who Is Entitled Under Section 216(h)(3) of the Social Security Act on the Worker's Earnings Record, 34186-34187 [E6-9156]
Download as PDF
34186
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2006 / Notices
Dated: June 6, 2006.
Elizabeth A. Davidson,
Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–9148 Filed 6–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Social Security Ruling, SSR 06–02p]
Title II: Adjudicating Child Relationship
Under Section 216(h)(2)(A) of the
Social Security Act When
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Test
Shows Sibling Relationship Between
Claimant and a Child of the Worker
Who Is Entitled Under Section
216(h)(3) of the Social Security Act on
the Worker’s Earnings Record
AGENCY:
Social Security Administration
(SSA).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
ACTION:
Notice of social security ruling.
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR
402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social
Security gives notice of Social Security
Ruling, SSR 06–02p. To be entitled to
child’s insurance benefits on the
earnings record of a worker under
section 202(d) of the Social Security Act
(The Act), a claimant must prove,
among other things, that he or she is the
worker’s child. There are several ways
a child can do this. As is pertinent to
this Ruling, three of the ways are
meeting either the State law definition
of child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of
the Act or one of the two federal law
definitions of child under section
216(h)(3) of the Act. This Ruling
provides that if the results of
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing
show a high probability that an entitled
child is the sibling of a child claimant
who is filing under the State law
definition and we have already
determined that the entitled child is the
worker’s natural child under one of the
two federal law definitions in section
216(h)(3), we will rely on the 216(h)(3)
determination when we determine
whether the child claimant is the
worker’s child in accordance with
section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act. Under
these circumstances, we will not
determine whether the child who is
entitled under one of the federal law
definitions in section 216(h)(3) also
meets the definition of child under State
law.
DATES: Effective Date: June 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Jayne Neubauer or Pete White,
Social Security Specialists, Office of
Income Security Programs, Social
Security Administration, 6401 Security
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 Jun 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401,
(410) 966–7303 or (410) 594–2041 or
TTY (800) 966–5609.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although
we are not required to do so pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are
publishing this Social Security Ruling
in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Social Security Rulings make
available to the public precedential
decisions relating to the Federal old-age,
survivors, disability, supplemental
security income, and special veterans
benefits programs. Social Security
Rulings may be based on case decisions
made at all administrative levels of
adjudication, federal court decisions,
Commissioner’s decisions, opinions of
the Office of the General Counsel, and
policy interpretations of the law and
regulations.
Although Social Security Rulings do
not have the same force and effect as the
statute or regulations, they are binding
on all components of the Social Security
Administration, in accordance with 20
CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are binding as
precedents in adjudicating cases.
If this Social Security Ruling is later
superseded, modified, or rescinded, we
will publish a notice in the Federal
Register to that effect.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security—
Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social
Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004
Social Security—Survivors Insurance.)
Dated: June 5, 2006.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Policy Interpretation Ruling
Title II: Adjudicating Child Relationship
Under Section 216(H)(2)(A) Of The
Social Security Act When
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (Dna) Test
Shows Sibling Relationship Between
Claimant And A Child Of The Worker
Who Is Entitled Under Section 216(H)(3)
Of The Social Security Act
Purpose: To explain our policy when:
• We have determined under section
216(h)(3) of the Act that a child (referred
to here as ‘‘C1’’) is the natural child of
the worker;
• We must determine whether
another child (referred to here as ‘‘C2’’)
is the worker’s child under section
216(h)(2)(A) of the Act; and
• The results of sibling DNA testing
show a high probability of a sibling
relationship between C1 and C2.
Citations (Authority): Sections 202(d),
205(a), 216(e), 216(h)(2)(A), 216(h)(3) and
702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act;
Regulations No. 4, subpart D, sections
404.350, 404.354 and 404.355.
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Pertinent History: To be entitled to
child’s insurance benefits on the
earnings record of a worker under
section 202(d) of the Act, a claimant
must prove, among other things, that he
or she is the worker’s child. A claimant
may prove that he or she is the child of
the worker in any of the following four
ways:
1. The claimant could inherit the
worker’s property as the worker’s child
under the law of intestate succession of
the appropriate State. See section
216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
416(h)(2)(A); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(1).
2. The claimant is the worker’s
natural child and the worker and the
claimant’s mother or father went
through a ceremony that would have
resulted in a valid marriage between
them except for a ‘‘legal impediment.’’
See section 216(h)(2)(B) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(B); 20 CFR
404.355(a)(2).
3. The claimant is the worker’s
natural child and, at the appropriate
time, the worker acknowledged in
writing that the claimant was the
worker’s child, was decreed by a court
to be the claimant’s parent, or was
ordered by a court to contribute to the
claimant’s support because the claimant
was the worker’s child. See section
216(h)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3);
20 CFR 404.355(a)(3).
4. The claimant is shown by evidence
satisfactory to us to be the worker’s
natural child, and the worker was living
with the claimant or contributing to the
claimant’s support at the appropriate
time. See section 216(h)(3) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(4).
For purposes of this policy
interpretation ruling, paragraph 1 above
is the State law definition of ‘‘child,’’
and paragraphs 2 through 4 are the
Federal law definitions of ‘‘child.’’ 1
This policy interpretation ruling
applies when the results of sibling DNA
testing show a high probability of a
sibling relationship between a child
claimant (C2) and a child (C1) whom we
have determined to be the worker’s
child under one of the federal law
definitions in section 216(h)(3) of the
Act. This Ruling addresses two
questions:
1. If C1 meets the requirements of
section 216(h)(3), must C1 also meet the
State law definition of child in order for
us to use evidence of the sibling
1 A claimant also may qualify as the worker’s
child by proving that he or she is the legally
adopted child, stepchild or equitably adopted child
of the worker, or that he or she is the grandchild
or step-grandchild of the worker or the worker’s
spouse. See section 216(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
416(e); 20 CFR 404.356–404.359. This ruling does
not address these relationships.
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2006 / Notices
relationship between C1 and C2 in
determining whether C2 is the worker’s
child under section 216 (h)(2)(A)?
2. For the purpose of determining
whether C2 meets the state law
definition of child under section
216(h)(2)(A), can we consider C1 to be
the worker’s natural child, based on the
determination of eligibility under
section 216(h)(3)?
These questions are not explicitly
addressed by either the statute or our
regulations. They have arisen because,
in some cases, the evidence used to
establish that C1 is the worker’s child
under section 216(h)(3) of the Act might
not satisfy the standard required to
show that C1 is the worker’s child under
state law. For example, under section
216(h)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the claimant
must show ‘‘by evidence satisfactory to
the Commissioner’’ that the worker is
the claimant’s parent and was ‘‘living
with or contributing to the support of’’
the claimant at the appropriate time.
The State law that we apply under
section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act often
provides for a higher standard of proof
(e.g., ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’)
to prove that a person is the child of the
worker for purposes of intestate
succession.
Policy Interpretation: Under our
current policy interpretation, when we
must determine whether C2 qualifies as
the worker’s child under section
216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, we must apply
the law of intestate succession that the
courts of the appropriate State (the State
of the worker’s domicile at the
appropriate time or the District of
Columbia if the worker was not a
domiciliary of a State at the appropriate
time) would apply to decide whether C2
could inherit intestate property as the
worker’s child. Under this ruling, we
will continue to apply the above policy
interpretation. However, we will not
review C1’s relationship to the worker
under State law in determining C2’s
relationship to the worker when:
• We have determined that C1 meets
one of the federal definitions of child in
section 216(h)(3) of the Act,
• There is no reason to question that
determination, and
• The results of DNA testing show a
high probability of a sibling relationship
between C1 and C2.
We will rely on the determination
under section 216(h)(3) establishing C1
as the natural child of the worker, for
purposes of determining C2’s
relationship to the worker under the
requirements and standards of proof
provided in State law. We will consider
C1 to be the known child of the worker
as determined under section 216(h)(3).
Then, under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 Jun 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
Act, we will apply the law of intestate
succession of the appropriate State to
determine whether the results of the
DNA test between C1 and C2 (and any
other evidence of C2’s relationship to
the worker) establish C2’s status as the
worker’s child.
This policy is supported by the
relevant statutes. Under section 205(a)
of the Act we have:
full power and authority to make rules and
regulations to establish procedures, not
inconsistent with the provisions of this title,
which are necessary or appropriate to carry
out such provisions, and shall adopt
reasonable and proper rules and regulations
to regulate and provide for the nature and
extent of the proofs and evidence and the
method of taking and furnishing the same in
order to establish the right to benefits
hereunder.
(Emphasis added.) Under section
702(a)(5) of the Act, we ‘‘may prescribe
such rules and regulations as * * * [we
determine] necessary or appropriate to
carry out the functions of the
Administration.’’
The policy interpretation in this
Ruling is consistent with the relevant
provisions of the Act and enhances the
efficiency of the claims adjudication
process.
Under the circumstances covered by
this Ruling, our policy is consistent
with section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act
because we will apply State law to
determine whether C2 is the worker’s
child. We will determine whether the
evidence relating to C2’s relationship to
the known child of the worker (C1), and
any other evidence of C2’s relationship
to the worker, establishes that C2 is the
worker’s child under the standards of
the applicable State law. Moreover, the
policy avoids the redundancy and
unnecessary administrative burden that
would occur if we reviewed C1’s
relationship to the worker under State
law when we have already determined
that C1 is the worker’s child under one
of the federal definitions in section
216(h)(3) of the Act.
Effective Date: This SSR is effective
upon publication in the Federal
Register.
Cross-References: Program Operations
Manual System sections GN00306.050,
GN00306.055, GN00306.060,
GN00306.065, GN00306.075,
GN00306.085, GN00306.100,
GN00306.105, GN00306.110,
GN00306.120, GN00306.125,
GN00306.130
[FR Doc. E6–9156 Filed 6–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34187
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Public Notice for Waiver of
Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance
Boscobel Municipal Airport, Boscobel,
WI
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with
respect to land.
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is giving notice
that a portion of the airport property
containing 60.6 acres located between
the airport and the Wisconsin River is
not needed for aeronautical use as
currently identified on the Airport
Layout Plan.
This parcel was originally acquired
through Grant No. AIP–01 in 1998. The
parcel was an uneconomic remnant left
from land acquisition from an airport
expansion project, presently open and
undeveloped. The land comprising this
parcel is, therefore, no longer needed for
aeronautical purposes. The sale of this
parcel will allow for the airport to
purchase other property that will
provide approach protection for the
airport. Income from the sale will be
used to improve the airport. There are
no impacts to the airport by allowing
the airport to dispose of the property.
In accordance with section 47107(h)
of title 49, United States Code, this
notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before
modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an
aeronautical purpose.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Sandra E. DePottey, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Airports District Office, 6020 28th
Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis,
MN 55450–2706. Telephone Number
(612) 713–4363/FAX Number (612) 713–
4364. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at this same
location or at the Boscobel Municipal
Airport, Boscobel, WI.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice announces that the FAA intends
to authorize the disposal of the subject
airport property at Boscobel Municipal
Airport, Boscobel, WI. Approval does
not constitute a commitment by the
FAA to financially assist in the disposal
of the subject airport property nor a
determination that all measures covered
by the program are eligible for Airport
Improvement Program funding from the
FAA. The disposition of proceeds from
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34186-34187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9156]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
[Social Security Ruling, SSR 06-02p]
Title II: Adjudicating Child Relationship Under Section
216(h)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act When Deoxyribonucleic Acid
(DNA) Test Shows Sibling Relationship Between Claimant and a Child of
the Worker Who Is Entitled Under Section 216(h)(3) of the Social
Security Act on the Worker's Earnings Record
AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA).
ACTION: Notice of social security ruling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR 06-02p. To
be entitled to child's insurance benefits on the earnings record of a
worker under section 202(d) of the Social Security Act (The Act), a
claimant must prove, among other things, that he or she is the worker's
child. There are several ways a child can do this. As is pertinent to
this Ruling, three of the ways are meeting either the State law
definition of child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act or one of the
two federal law definitions of child under section 216(h)(3) of the
Act. This Ruling provides that if the results of Deoxyribonucleic Acid
(DNA) testing show a high probability that an entitled child is the
sibling of a child claimant who is filing under the State law
definition and we have already determined that the entitled child is
the worker's natural child under one of the two federal law definitions
in section 216(h)(3), we will rely on the 216(h)(3) determination when
we determine whether the child claimant is the worker's child in
accordance with section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act. Under these
circumstances, we will not determine whether the child who is entitled
under one of the federal law definitions in section 216(h)(3) also
meets the definition of child under State law.
DATES: Effective Date: June 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jayne Neubauer or Pete White,
Social Security Specialists, Office of Income Security Programs, Social
Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-
6401, (410) 966-7303 or (410) 594-2041 or TTY (800) 966-5609.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although we are not required to do so
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this
Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability,
supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs.
Social Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all
administrative levels of adjudication, federal court decisions,
Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General
Counsel, and policy interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and
effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all
components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20
CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are binding as precedents in adjudicating cases.
If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or
rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that
effect.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program Nos. 96.001 Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security--Survivors Insurance.)
Dated: June 5, 2006.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Policy Interpretation Ruling
Title II: Adjudicating Child Relationship Under Section 216(H)(2)(A) Of
The Social Security Act When Deoxyribonucleic Acid (Dna) Test Shows
Sibling Relationship Between Claimant And A Child Of The Worker Who Is
Entitled Under Section 216(H)(3) Of The Social Security Act
Purpose: To explain our policy when:
We have determined under section 216(h)(3) of the Act that
a child (referred to here as ``C1'') is the natural child of the
worker;
We must determine whether another child (referred to here
as ``C2'') is the worker's child under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act;
and
The results of sibling DNA testing show a high probability
of a sibling relationship between C1 and C2.
Citations (Authority): Sections 202(d), 205(a), 216(e),
216(h)(2)(A), 216(h)(3) and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act;
Regulations No. 4, subpart D, sections 404.350, 404.354 and 404.355.
Pertinent History: To be entitled to child's insurance benefits on
the earnings record of a worker under section 202(d) of the Act, a
claimant must prove, among other things, that he or she is the worker's
child. A claimant may prove that he or she is the child of the worker
in any of the following four ways:
1. The claimant could inherit the worker's property as the worker's
child under the law of intestate succession of the appropriate State.
See section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(2)(A); 20 CFR
404.355(a)(1).
2. The claimant is the worker's natural child and the worker and
the claimant's mother or father went through a ceremony that would have
resulted in a valid marriage between them except for a ``legal
impediment.'' See section 216(h)(2)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
416(h)(2)(B); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(2).
3. The claimant is the worker's natural child and, at the
appropriate time, the worker acknowledged in writing that the claimant
was the worker's child, was decreed by a court to be the claimant's
parent, or was ordered by a court to contribute to the claimant's
support because the claimant was the worker's child. See section
216(h)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR 404.355(a)(3).
4. The claimant is shown by evidence satisfactory to us to be the
worker's natural child, and the worker was living with the claimant or
contributing to the claimant's support at the appropriate time. See
section 216(h)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3); 20 CFR
404.355(a)(4).
For purposes of this policy interpretation ruling, paragraph 1
above is the State law definition of ``child,'' and paragraphs 2
through 4 are the Federal law definitions of ``child.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A claimant also may qualify as the worker's child by proving
that he or she is the legally adopted child, stepchild or equitably
adopted child of the worker, or that he or she is the grandchild or
step-grandchild of the worker or the worker's spouse. See section
216(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(e); 20 CFR 404.356-404.359. This
ruling does not address these relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This policy interpretation ruling applies when the results of
sibling DNA testing show a high probability of a sibling relationship
between a child claimant (C2) and a child (C1) whom we have determined
to be the worker's child under one of the federal law definitions in
section 216(h)(3) of the Act. This Ruling addresses two questions:
1. If C1 meets the requirements of section 216(h)(3), must C1 also
meet the State law definition of child in order for us to use evidence
of the sibling
[[Page 34187]]
relationship between C1 and C2 in determining whether C2 is the
worker's child under section 216 (h)(2)(A)?
2. For the purpose of determining whether C2 meets the state law
definition of child under section 216(h)(2)(A), can we consider C1 to
be the worker's natural child, based on the determination of
eligibility under section 216(h)(3)?
These questions are not explicitly addressed by either the statute
or our regulations. They have arisen because, in some cases, the
evidence used to establish that C1 is the worker's child under section
216(h)(3) of the Act might not satisfy the standard required to show
that C1 is the worker's child under state law. For example, under
section 216(h)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the claimant must show ``by
evidence satisfactory to the Commissioner'' that the worker is the
claimant's parent and was ``living with or contributing to the support
of'' the claimant at the appropriate time. The State law that we apply
under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act often provides for a higher
standard of proof (e.g., ``clear and convincing evidence'') to prove
that a person is the child of the worker for purposes of intestate
succession.
Policy Interpretation: Under our current policy interpretation,
when we must determine whether C2 qualifies as the worker's child under
section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, we must apply the law of intestate
succession that the courts of the appropriate State (the State of the
worker's domicile at the appropriate time or the District of Columbia
if the worker was not a domiciliary of a State at the appropriate time)
would apply to decide whether C2 could inherit intestate property as
the worker's child. Under this ruling, we will continue to apply the
above policy interpretation. However, we will not review C1's
relationship to the worker under State law in determining C2's
relationship to the worker when:
We have determined that C1 meets one of the federal
definitions of child in section 216(h)(3) of the Act,
There is no reason to question that determination, and
The results of DNA testing show a high probability of a
sibling relationship between C1 and C2.
We will rely on the determination under section 216(h)(3)
establishing C1 as the natural child of the worker, for purposes of
determining C2's relationship to the worker under the requirements and
standards of proof provided in State law. We will consider C1 to be the
known child of the worker as determined under section 216(h)(3). Then,
under section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act, we will apply the law of
intestate succession of the appropriate State to determine whether the
results of the DNA test between C1 and C2 (and any other evidence of
C2's relationship to the worker) establish C2's status as the worker's
child.
This policy is supported by the relevant statutes. Under section
205(a) of the Act we have:
full power and authority to make rules and regulations to establish
procedures, not inconsistent with the provisions of this title,
which are necessary or appropriate to carry out such provisions, and
shall adopt reasonable and proper rules and regulations to regulate
and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and
the method of taking and furnishing the same in order to establish
the right to benefits hereunder.
(Emphasis added.) Under section 702(a)(5) of the Act, we ``may
prescribe such rules and regulations as * * * [we determine] necessary
or appropriate to carry out the functions of the Administration.''
The policy interpretation in this Ruling is consistent with the
relevant provisions of the Act and enhances the efficiency of the
claims adjudication process.
Under the circumstances covered by this Ruling, our policy is
consistent with section 216(h)(2)(A) of the Act because we will apply
State law to determine whether C2 is the worker's child. We will
determine whether the evidence relating to C2's relationship to the
known child of the worker (C1), and any other evidence of C2's
relationship to the worker, establishes that C2 is the worker's child
under the standards of the applicable State law. Moreover, the policy
avoids the redundancy and unnecessary administrative burden that would
occur if we reviewed C1's relationship to the worker under State law
when we have already determined that C1 is the worker's child under one
of the federal definitions in section 216(h)(3) of the Act.
Effective Date: This SSR is effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Cross-References: Program Operations Manual System sections
GN00306.050, GN00306.055, GN00306.060, GN00306.065, GN00306.075,
GN00306.085, GN00306.100, GN00306.105, GN00306.110, GN00306.120,
GN00306.125, GN00306.130
[FR Doc. E6-9156 Filed 6-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P