TN 26 (07-18)

A. PR 18-084 Would Client Qualify for Utah Child Benefits when Arizona Court Terminated the Number Holder's Parent-Child Relationship?

Date: May 14, 2018

1. Syllabus

Under Utah law, an order terminating the parent-child relationship does not extinguish the right of the child to inherit from the parent. Since the number holder (NH) is domiciled in Utah and the claimant is his natural child, the claimant is eligible to inherit from the NH under Utah law despite the Arizona termination order.

2. Opinion

Question Presented

You asked whether P~ would be considered the child of NH T~ under Utah intestacy laws and be entitled to child’s benefits where an Arizona court terminated the NH’s parent-child relationship with P~.

Short Answer

Under Utah law, an order terminating the parent-child relationship does not extinguish the right of the child to inherit from the parent. Since the NH is domiciled in Utah and P~ is his natural child, she is eligible to inherit from him under Utah law notwithstanding the Arizona termination order.

Background

The NH married E~ in December 2007, and P~ was born during the marriage in September 2008. P~’s birth certificate lists the NH as her father. In August 2017, however, a county court in Arizona terminated the NH’s parental rights and the parent-child relationship with P~. P~ currently lives in Virginia with her mother, E~. The NH lives in Utah and receives Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB); he identified three children including P~ in his DIB application filed in May 2017.¹ The NH was domiciled in Utah when P~ applied for DIB in October 2017.

Discussion

P~ Is Eligible for Child’s Benefits Because She Can Inherit from the NH Despite the Court Order Terminating Her Parent-Child Relationship with the NH

In evaluating the parent-child relationship for purposes of child’s benefits, the agency looks to the intestate succession laws of the state in which the NH was domiciled when the child applied for benefits. 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(h)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.355(b); POMS GN 00306.001(C)(1)(a).

P~ applied for benefits in October 2017. The Arizona termination order, issued in August 2017, referenced an Arizona address for the NH. However, the NH provided a Utah address when he applied for DIB in May 2017, and continues to receive mail at that address; development of his DIB application also shows that he received medical care in Utah during 2017. We think this evidence sufficiently establishes the NH’s domicile in Utah. See POMS GN 00305.001(B)(2) (domicile).

P~ is the NH’s natural child under Utah’s intestate succession laws. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 75-2-114(1) (parent and child relationship established as provided in Utah Uniform Parentage Act); 78B-15-201(2)(a) (father and child relationship established by presumption of paternity); 78B-15-204(1)(a) (man is presumed father of a child born during marriage) (West 2015). Assuming that a Utah court would recognize and give effect to the Arizona termination order,² it would not affect P~’s right to inherit. In Utah, an order terminating the parent-child relationship does not terminate “the right of the child to inherit from the parent.” Id. § 78A-6-513(1). Utah law explicitly preserves the right of a child to inherit from a parent even when a court terminates the parent-child relationship. P~ is thus eligible to inherit from the NH under Utah law, and she is entitled to child’s benefits under the NH’s record.

Conclusion

The court order terminating the NH’s parent-child relationship with P~ does not prevent her from inheriting through the NH under Utah’s intestate succession laws. She is thus entitled to child’s benefits under the NH’s record.

Footnotes:

[1]

^. The NH’s electronic file does not show that P~ has been adopted. If evidence of an adoption comes to light, however, it could affect P~’s eligibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.361(b).

[2]

^. Utah law generally treats court orders from other states as if they were issued by a Utah court. See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-5-302. But a court might not enforce another state’s order if the issuing state lacked jurisdiction. See Bankler v. Bankler, 936 P.2d 797, 799-800 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Here, it is not clear that the Arizona court had jurisdiction to issue the termination order. But we need not definitively answer this question because, if the Arizona termination order were not given any effect, our conclusion that P~ can inherit from the NH would be the same.