An individual born in wedlock can produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that a man married to his mother at the time of his birth was his father. Claimant was born on July XX, in Tennessee. On October XX,Ms. Children together means children they had together before the marriage and all children born or adopted during their marriage. During an interview in the application process, Ms.
After the interview, Ms. Capato, U. See Capato, U. Therefore, the agency looks to Tennessee intestacy law to determine whether Claimant is the child of NH for purposes of entitlement pursuant to section h 2 A of the Act. See TENN. See Coyle v.
Erickson, No. The public policy of Tennessee was to render a person legitimate rather than illegitimate. See id. Tyler v. Tyler, S. Rimer, S. Tennessee courts have since eroded this traditional presumption of legitimacy. In a decision, a court held that the presumption could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and by evidence other than just the mere fact that the mother did not have access to her husband.
Shell v. Law, S. To satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard, a party must eliminate any serious or substantial doubt concerning the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the evidence and should produce a firm belief in the truth of the allegations sought to be established. See In re Estate of Armstrong v.
Manis, S. Under Tennessee law, true parentage is the end pursuit for the courts in paternity actions. See Shell, S. Young, S. Here, Claimant is pd to be the natural child of NH since he was born more than a year after Ms. The new evidence included a divorce decree, wherein Ms. In addition, Ms. See 20 C. Under Tennessee law, a rebuttable presumption of paternity is established under if blood, genetic, or DNA testing shows at least a ninety-five percent probability of parentage.
The Tennessee statute provides that such a presumption can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. When the result of blood, genetic, or DNA tests reveal a statistical probability of paternity greater than ninety-nine percent, a nearly conclusive presumption of paternity is established that can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
Go to date:
Consistent with our opinion, we conclude that the genetic testalong with Ms. In re S. DNA test indicate a The evidence provided does not rebut these presumptions. The DNA test showing a The couple divorced on September XX, The court found NH was not the father of the unborn. The birth certificate does not name a father. CapatoU. See Tenn. Code Ann. WilkersonNo. Claimant appears to be entitled to a presumption of paternity under both the born-within-wedlock and the DNA-test provisions noted above.
See McDowell v. Boyd, No. In Tennessee, a statement by the claimant's mother indicating the holder orally acknowledged that Claimant was his son and occasionally provided for his needs, accompanied with a program from the holder's funeral listing the claimant as his son is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the mother's husband was the father. The evidence listed ly cannot be considered clear and convincing when the husband never denied paternity and he was shown as father on the Tennessee birth certificate.
No blood test was performed. We are aware of no evidence satisfying any of the required conditions in section h 3 C of the Act. In Tennessee, clear and convincing evidence must produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established and no serious or substantial doubt about the conclusions drawn from the evidence. See Fruge v. DoeS. See State ex rel. Clark v.
Therefore, Claimant is pd to be the natural child of Husband, not NH. For a person born in wedlock, Tennessee has applied the common law presumption that born to a married couple is the child of the husband, no matter how soon the birth follows the marriage.
See Jackson v. ThorntonS. In the past, this presumption could be rebutted only by clear, strong, convincing evidence that the husband was impotent or absent so as to have no access to the mother.
However, this traditional presumption was eroded in a decision that held that this presumption could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence other than non-access. See Shell v. LawS. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heightened burden of proof that requires more than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
See In re S. The Tennessee Supreme Court has considered the case of born in wedlock who attempted to intervene in intestacy proceedings alleging that she was of a man other than the man married to her mother at the time of her birth. See In re Estate of Walton v.
YoungS. In Youngthe alleged illegitimate daughter was able to prove conclusively through a blood test that the man married to her mother at the time of her birth was not her father, but was unable to show that the decedent was her biological father by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the presumption of paternity established by birth to a married couple can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. ManisS. In Manisan individual born in wedlock was able to produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that the man married to her mother at the time of her birth was her father and successfully pursued a claim on the intestate estate of her putative half-sister.
The burdens on the child to rebut the presumption of legitimacy and prove the paternity of another man merged into one. However, the file does not contain from a blood test, such as the one the Young court considered.
Birth certificates are prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Also, the record does not indicate that Husband denied paternity of Claimant. According to Tennessee case law, clear and convincing evidence of paternity exists if the deceased putative father orally admitted to paternity, established a close personal relationship with the child, and supported the child financially. See Majors v.
SmithS. See Robinson v. TabbS. See Gentry v. July 25, In this case, the record does not include clear and convincing evidence of paternity of the types discussed above. Mary A. Under Tennessee law, a man is pd to be the father of who is born either during the course of the marriage between the man and the child's mother or within days after the marriage.
Our claimant was conceived during the marriage of NH and Mother and was born fewer than days after their divorce. Therefore, Claimant is pd to be the natural child of NH and this presumption can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence which can include a finding that the husband was impotent or had no access to the mother at the time of conception.
Even were these facts in dispute, the claimant could still able to inherit from the NH because Tennessee law also states that "[a] child born to a married woman as a result of artificial insemination, with consent of the married woman's husband, is deemed to be the legitimate child of the husband and wife.
Additionally, since the mother did not remarry she would be entitled to surviving divorced mother's benefits on this record retroactive to the month in which claimant's application was filed. You asked whether the claimant, who was reportedly conceived through artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm donor, is eligible to receive child's insurance benefits on the of the holder and if so, what is the earliest date of entitlement.
You also asked if the claimant's mother is eligible to receive mother's insurance benefits and if so, what is the earliest date of entitlement. For the reasons stated below, we believe a Social Security Administration SSA adjudicator could find the claimant eligible to inherit from the holder through intestacy and would thus be eligible for child's benefits on the of the holder.
We also believe the claimant's mother is eligible to receive mother's benefits. Both the claimant and his mother are eligible to receive benefits for up to six months immediately before the month in which the claimant's application was filed.