Postmortem Sperm Retrieval and the Social Security Administration: How Modern Reproductive Technology Makes Strange Bedfellows
| dc.creator | Radford, Mary F. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-10-24T18:29:17Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-10-24T18:29:17Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
| dc.description.abstract | As science and technology continues to evolve, the law must do so as well. However, the law almost always lags behind. This is certainly true concerning Postmortem Sperm Retrieval and the status of a child as a decedent if they are conceived after a father has died. A major point of focus is if the child qualifies as a dependent child who can receive social security benefits from their deceased father. Courts traditionally have varied on this issue and only a few states have adopted legislation addressing this concern. This article looks at both Gillert-Netting v. Barnhart and Vernoff v. Astrue cases and their ramifications in the Ninth Circuit. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2 EST. PLAN. & COMMUNITY PROP. L.J. 33 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2346/73275 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Estate Planning & Community Property Law Journal | en_US |
| dc.subject | Decedent | en_US |
| dc.subject | Dependent | en_US |
| dc.subject | Inheritance | en_US |
| dc.subject | Parentage | en_US |
| dc.subject | Postmortem sperm retrieval | en_US |
| dc.subject | PMSR | en_US |
| dc.subject | Social Security benefits | en_US |
| dc.subject | Vernoff v. Astrue | en_US |
| dc.subject | Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart | en_US |
| dc.subject | California | en_US |
| dc.subject | Arizonia | en_US |
| dc.subject | Ninth circuit | en_US |
| dc.title | Postmortem Sperm Retrieval and the Social Security Administration: How Modern Reproductive Technology Makes Strange Bedfellows | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |