AR 86-15(6)
EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/20/86
AR 86-15(6): Boyland v. Califano, 633 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1980); Parker v. Schweiker, 673 F.2d 160 (6th Cir. 1982); Childress v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 679 F.2d 623 (6th Cir. 1982) -- The "contribution to support" requirement of section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act
ISSUE:
Whether, when determining if a worker'scontributions to the support of his illegitimate child areregular and substantial, the Secretary must consider thefinancial circumstances of the worker and child.STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:
Section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 416 (h)(3)(C)(ii); 20 C.F.R. 404.366(a)(2); SSR 77-31
CIRCUIT:
SIXTH (MICHIGAN, OHIO, TENNESSEE, KENTUCKY)
Boyland v. Califano, 633 F.2d 430 (1980)
Parker v. Schweiker, 673 F.2d 160 (1982)
Childress v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 679 F.2d 623 (1982)
APPLICABILITY OF RULING:
- This ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all administrative levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing and appeals Council). To the extent inconsistent therewith, this ruling supersedes SSR 77-31 for cases arising in the Sixth Circuit only. This Ruling of Acquiescence also revokes SSR 81-1c.
DESCRIPTION OF CASES:
Boyland
James Henry Hamilton was the father of two illegitimate children borne by Nannie Boyland. At the time of his death, Mr. Hamilton was a retired stone mason with a minimal income. On numerous occasions, he gave $5 $10 to his illegitimate children (who lived apart from him), bought them clothes and presents, gave them lunch money, and allowed them to stay in his home for weeks at a time.
Nannie Boyland applied on behalf of her children for surviving child's benefits on the earnings record of Mr. Hamilton. The claims were denied by the Secretary, who found that Mr. Hamilton was not the father of Mrs. Boyland's children. (In order to establish legal status as a "child" of the worker under section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(ii), an individual must demonstrate by evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that the worker was the mother or father of the individual and must establish that the worker was living with or contributing to the support of the individual at the time of the worker's death.) On behalf of the children, Mrs. Boyland sought review of the Secretary's decision in the United States District Court. Though finding that Mr. Hamilton was the father of the children, the district court ruled that the children could not satisfy the living with or contributing to the support requirement of Section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act and granted summary judgment for the Secretary. Mrs. Boyland appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Parker
Bradley Parker was the illegitimate child of Gloria Parker and Harry Roush, who lived together before, during, and for approximately two years after Bradley's birth. Mr. Roush contributed to Bradley's support for at least 10 years. For approximately the last year of his life, Mr. Roush was extremely ill and either bedfast or hospitalized and made no contributions to Bradley's support.
Gloria Parker applied for surviving child's benefits on Bradley's behalf on the earnings record of Mr. Roush. As in Boyland, the claim was denied by the Secretary, who found the evidence insufficient to establish that Mr. Roush was Bradley's father. Gloria Parker, on behalf of Bradley Parker, appealed the Secretary's decision to the United States District Court. When the district court affirmed the Secretary's decision, Ms. Parker appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Childress
Patrick Childress was the illegitimate son of Gary Rounsaville and Garner Childress. Patrick did not live with Mr. Rounsaville, but Gary contributed $15 $20 every month to help support Patrick.
Upon Gary's death, Patrick applied for surviving child's benefits on Gary's earnings record. The Secretary denied Patrick's claim, concluding that Patrick had not shown by satisfactory evidence that Gary made regular and substantial contributions to his support and thus had not satisfied the requirement of section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act that the insured individual was living with or contributing to the support of the applicant at the time of the insured individual's death. Mrs. Childress, on behalf of Patrick, sought review of the Secretary's decision in the United States District Court. When the district court affirmed the Secretary's decision, Mrs. Childress appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
HOLDINGS:
Boyland
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard the appeal and reversed the district court's finding that the wage earner was not contributing to the support of the children at the time of his death. Though recognizing that the majority of courts supported the Secretary's use of the "regular and substantial" or "regular and continuous" support test, the court found the use of that test appropriate only where the wage earner's income was regular and substantial. Calling it "ludicrous" to require regular and substantial payments from a poor wage earner with an irregular income, the court stated that the focus must be on "whether the contributions that were made to the support of his children were important to them given their needs and the wage earner's economic circumstances and ability to support." In the instant case, the court held that the wage earner's contributions of $5 $10 at a time, gifts of clothing, presents, and lunch money, and housing of the children in his home for weeks at a time constituted sufficient support given the circumstances of the wage earner and the children.
Parker
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard the appeal and reversed the district court. Relying on its prior opinion in Boyland, the court held that the "support requirement" of section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act was not a fixed rule requiring regular or substantial support but, rather, one requiring evaluation of the support given in light of the father's and child's actual circumstances. On the facts described above, the court found the support test met.
Childress
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard the appeal and reversed the district court. Relying on its prior opinions in Boyland and Parker, the court held that the contributions of $15 $20 per month were sufficient to satisfy the support test of section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act in view of the meager resources of both the wage earner and the mother of his illegitimate child. The court further noted that the Secretary's "regular and substantial" support standard had been newly incorporated in a regulation, 20 C.F.R. 404.366(a)(2), though the instant claim had been decided at the administrative level prior to the regulation's effective date. While expressly not deciding whether the regulation was inconsistent with the reasoning of Boyland and Parker, the court opined that an absolute or fixed standard of substantiality would be contrary to the policy of the Social Security Act.
STATEMENT AS TO HOW BOYLAND, PARKER, and CHILDRESS DIFFER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY:
The "contributing to the support of the applicant" provision in section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(C)(ii) has been interpreted by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in regulation 20 C.F.R. 404.366(a)(2) to require contributions that are both regularly made and large enough to meet an important part of the applicant's ordinary living costs. Neither the regulation nor other policy statements of SSA establish absolute standards of regularity or substantiality. When evaluating contributions to support, SSA attaches little relevance to the worker's financial circumstances but does consider the child's circumstances when determining the importance of contributions to the child.
Though recognizing the appropriateness of the Secretary's regulatory definition where the worker had the income or means to make such regular and substantial contributions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in the cases discussed above that the "regular and substantial contributions" test was inappropriate in cases where the worker was financially unable to make such contributions. In such cases, the court held that the actual circumstances of the father and of the child's household (i.e., the needs of the child and the financial ability of the worker to contribute) are factors that must be considered in determining whether contributions meet the statutory requirement of support.
EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THESE DECISIONS WITHIN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT:
This ruling applies only to cases where the child resides in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, or Tennessee at the time of determination or decision at any level of administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council.
In a claim for surviving child's benefits under section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(h)(3)(C)(ii)) where the worker's income had been irregular or insubstantial, the substantiality and regularity of the worker's contributions to the applicant's support must be evaluated in light of the financial resources of both the worker and the child's household.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Date Of Publication