SECTION 202 (h), (j), and (p).-PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS— UNLIMITED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF SUPPORT UPON SHOWING OF "GOOD CAUSE"-PROSPECTIVE LIFE OF APPLICATION SSR 67-35 Where the mother of a worker who died in 1950 first became eligible for parent's insurance benefits in 1958 by reason of the 1958 amendments to the Social Security Act, and as a condition of entitlement to parent's insurance benefits under the provisions of such amendments she was required to file, within the 2-year period ending with August 31, 1960, proof of the support she had been receiving from the worker at the time of his death, but because of her advanced age, illiteracy, and the remote location of her home she did not file such proof until July 1963, held, there was good cause for the mother's failure to file proof of support within the 2-year period provided by the 1958 amendments, and therefore, under section 202 (p) of the Act as amended in 1965, the proof of support she filed in July 1963 is deemed to have been filed within such 2-year period. A worker, D, died in the Philippines on May 24, 1950, survived by his widow and minor child who became entitled to mother's and child's insurance benefits on his earnings record in November 1956. D was also survived by his mother, M, who filed an application on July 29, 1963, at age 76, for parent's insurance benefits on D's earnings record and at the same time filed proof of the support she had been receiving from him prior to his death. M had been receiving more than the required one-half of her support from D at the time of his death. Her application for benefits, however, was denied on the ground that she had not filed the required proof of support within the time limits specified in sections 202 (h) (1) (B) (ii) and 202(p) of the Social Security Act, as such sections existed immediately prior to the enactment of the 1965 amendments to the Social Security Act (Public Law 89-97) on July 30, 1965. M appealed from this determination by requesting, successively, reconsideration and a hearing. However, in a hearing examiner's decision dated July 28, 1965, the initial determination denying parent's insurance benefits was affirmed. M then requested and was granted a review of the hearing examiner's decision by the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration. Under section 202 (h) (1) of the Social Security Act as pertinent here, the mother or father of a deceased fully insured individual can upon the filing of an application become entitled to parent's insurance benefits if (in addition to other requirements not here at issue) such parent: (B) (i) was receiving at least one-half of his support from such individual at the time of such individual's death * * * and (ii) filed proof of such support within two years after the date of such death * Prior to August 28, 1958 (the date of enactment of Public Law 85-840, the Social Security Amendments of 1958), section 202(h)(1) of the Act also provided that a parent of a deceased worker could not become entitled to parent's insurance benefits on the worker's earnings record if the worker was survived by a spouse or a child who was eligible for benefits on his earnings record. Section 304 (a)(1) of P.L. 85-840, in amending section 202 (h) (1) of the Act, removed this provision. Accordingly, since D was survived by an eligible widow and child, M first became eligible for parent's insurance benefits on D's earnings record with the enactment of the 1958 amendments. Section 304 (c) of P.L. 85-840 provides that: In the case of any parent who would not be entitled to parent's benefits under section 202 (h) of the Social Security Act except for the enactment of this section, the requirement in such section 202 (h) that proof of support be filed within two years of the date of death of the insured individual referred to therein shall not apply if such proof is filed within the two-year period beginning with the first day of the month after the month in which this Act is enacted. Since P.L. 85-840 was enacted in August 1958, M had until August 31, 1960, in which to file proof of support under the foregoing provision of the 1958 amendments. Section 202 (p) of the Act, as in effect following the enactment of the 1958 amendments to the Social Security Act which made M eligible for parent's benefits and before the enactment of the 1965 amendments to the Act, provided that where there is a showing of good cause for failure to file proof of support within the initial 2-year period, such proof shall be deemed to have been filed within such initial period if it is filed within the 2-year period following the initial 2-year period. Under this provision, had M shown good cause for failure to file proof of support within the 2-year period provided by section 304 (c) of P.L. 85-840, supra, she could have filed proof of support at any time through August 31, 1962. This latter date was the latest possible date that she could have filed timely proof of support under the Act as in effect prior to the Social Security Amendments of 1965. Since M did not file proof of support until July 29, 1963, she did not file proof of support within the time limits then prescribed by the Act. Accordingly, having failed to satisfy all the requirements for entitlement, she was not entitled to parent's insurance benefits. Section 202 (p) was amended in 1965, however, to provide that proof of support filed at any time after the initial 2-year period will be deemed to have been filed within the initial period if it is established that there was good cause for failure to file within the initial period. Section 324(a) of Public Law 89-97, supra, amended section 202 (p) so that it now reads in pertinent part: (p) In any case in which there is a failure (1) to file proof of support under * subparagraph (B) of subsection (h) (1) ** within the period prescribed by such subparagraph any such proof *** which is filed after the expiration of such period Section 324 (b) of P.L. 89-97 provides that the amended provisions of section 202 (p) are effective with respect to monthly benefits based on applications filed in or after July 1965. Thus, the questions to be resolved in this case are whether there was good cause for M's failure to file proof of support on or prior to August 31, 1960, and if so, whether the provisions of section 202 (p) as amended in 1965 are effective with respect to her 1963 application for parent's insurance benefits. Section 404.617(a) of Social Security Administration Regulations No. 4 (20 CFR 404.617(a)) sets forth the various situations under which good cause may be found for failure to file proof of support within the initial 2-year period. Among these situations are: (1) Circumstances beyond the individual's control, such as extended illness, mental or physical incapacity, or communication difficulties; or (4) Unusual or unavoidable circumstances, the nature of which demonstrate that the individual could not reasonably be expected to have been aware of the need to file timely the proof of support In this case, it was established that M was uneducated, could neither read nor write, and was age 71 when she first became eligible for benefits by virtue of the 1958 amendments to the Act. Her advanced age, her illiteracy, the remoteness of her home in the Philippines, and the fact that she did not become eligible for benefits until the Act was amended more than 8 years after D's death, are all circumstances beyond M's control. She was not aware of her rights to social security benefits, and could not reasonably be expected to have been aware of these rights and of the need to file timely the proof of support necessary to protect or perfect these rights. Accordingly, there was good cause for M's failure to file proof of support within the 2-year period ending on August 31, 1960. The question remaining is whether the provisions of section 202(p) as amended in 1965 are applicable in this case. Should these provisions be applicable here, the proof of support M filed in 1963 would be deemed to have been filed within the 2-year period ending August 31, 1960, and she would then be entitled to parent's insurance benefits. However, section 324(b) of the 1965 amendments provides that the amended provisions of section 202(p) are effective only with respect to monthly benefits based on applications filed in or after July 1965. M's application for benefits was filed in 1963. Section 202 (j) (2) of the Act, as amended in 1965 by section 328 (a) of P.L. 89-97, provides that an application for monthly benefits which is filed before the first month in which the applicant satisfied the requirements for such benefits shall be deemed a valid application if the applicant satisfies the requirements for benefits before the Secretary makes a final decision on the application, and that if, upon final decision by the Secretary, the applicant is found to satisfy such requirements, the application will be deemed to have been filed in such first month. Section 328(d) of P.L. 89-97 provides in part that section 202(j) (2) as amended is applicable to applications as to which the Secretary had not made a final decision before July 30, 1965. (For illustration of the provisions of section 202 (j) (2) of the Act as amended in 1965, see SSR 66–26, C.B. 1966, p. 41.) M's request for review of the hearing examiner's decision in her case was pending before the Appeals Council subsequent to July 30, 1965. Consequently, a final decision had not been made on her 1963 application for benefits before July 30, 1965, and the provisions of section 202 (j) (2) as amended in 1965 are applicable to her 1963 application. The finding that M may be deemed to have filed proof of support timely is possible only by reason of the amendment of section 202 (p) of the Act by the Social Security Amendments of 1965. Consequently, M could first satisfy all the requirements for entitlement to parent's insurance benefits no earlier than July 1965, the month of enactment of the 1965 amendments. Therefore, in accordance with the amended provisions of section 202(j) (2), M's 1963 application for benefits is deemed to have been filed in July 1965. Since her application is deemed filed in July 1965, the provisions of section 202 (p) as amended in 1965 are effective with respect to monthly benefits based on that application.. Under section 202(j)(1) of the Act, an application can have retroactive effect for no more than 12 months prior to the month in which it is filed. Since M's application is deemed filed in July 1965, benefits based on that application may be paid for months beginning with, but not earlier than, July 1964. Accordingly, it is held that there was good cause for M's failure to file proof of support within the initial 2-year period ending with August 31, 1960, and therefore, under section 202 (p) of the Act as amended in July 1965, she is deemed to have filed proof of support within such initial 2-year period. Having met all requirements for entitlement, M is entitled to parent's insurance benefits. SECTION 216(h) (2) (A).-RELATIONSHIP-ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR RECOGNITION OF PARENT-PUERTO RICO 20 CFR 404.1101 and 404.1110 (c) SSS 68-21 Where the worker, born of a meretricious relationship, was raised and supported by the claimant as her child, both were known in the community in which they lived as parent and child, the worker had stated the claimant was his mother on his application for a social security account number many years before, and the claimant had stated that the worker was her child held, under Puerto Rican law, where a mother's maternity of her child is established, the mother who "voluntarily recognized" the worker as her child is considered the worker's mother, has inheritance rights in the worker's estate and thereby qualifies as the worker's "parent" under section 216 (h) (2) (A) of the Social Security Act for purposes of entitlement to parent's insurance benefits. F and W did not marry but cohabited for a period of 35 years until F's death in 1952. During this period, R, one of 10 children, was born of the relationship. Although both parents were free to marry at the time of R's conception and birth in 1924 in Puerto Rico, they had not done so. In 1955, R, the worker, in applying for a social security account number, identified W as his maternal parent. Upon R's death in January 1965, W filed application for parent's insurance benefits on R's earnings record. Neither a birth record nor baptismal record was found for R. However, in claiming parent's insurance benefits, W has stated that R was her child, that she had reared R and that they were known as parent and child in the Puerto Rican community in which they lived. Section 202 (h) (3) of the Social Security Act, for the purpose of entitlement to parent's insurance benefits, defines the term "parent" in pertinent part as follows: (3) the mother or father of an individual, a stepparent an adopting parent In addition, section 216(h) (2) (A) of the Act states in part: or In determining whether an applicant is the child or parent of a fully or currently insured individual for purposes of this title, the Secretary shall apply such law as would be applied in determining the devolution of intestate personal property by the courts of the State in which such insured individual is domiciled ⭑* • at the time of his death * Applicants who according to such law would have the same status relative to taking intestate personal property as a child or parent shall be deemed such. The term "State," as provided by section 210(h) of the Act, includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where R was domiciled at the time of his death. The question thus presented is whether W may be considered the parent of R under the Puerto Rican law which determines the devolution of intestate personal property, thereby conferring on W the status of R's parent under section 216(h) (2) (A) of the Act. Generally, a child and its mother can inherit from each other regardless of the child's legitimacy. In such cases, an illegitimate child has the status of "child" as to the mother, and the mother has the status of a "parent" as to the child. However the laws of Puerto Rico require some recognizing or acknowledging act by the mother before such status can be established. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico in June 1963 ruled in the case of Ocasio v. Diaz, No. 85, that from July 25, 1952, with respect to the legal status of children, there were no longer any distinctions based on the circumstances of their birth, i.e., that all children have the status of "children" of their parents to whom they are legally filiated and that, accordingly, all children have equal inheritance rights with respect to such parents. As to children born out of wedlock, their filiation to their natural father, where possible, may be by "voluntary recognition" by the father or may be judicially compelled. Such recognition includes any act or deed, express or implied, by which the child is acknowledged or recognized. See SSR 6646, C.B. 1966, p. 12. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has ruled in effect that, regardless of when a child was born, the biological parent of a child may voluntarily acknowledge or recognize the child as his or her child and such acknowledgment or recognition makes the child the legal child of the father or mother and confers on such father or mother the legal status of parent of such child. Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, the sole issue in determining the status of an acknowledged illegitimate child is the biological fact of the alleged parent's paternity or maternity of the child. Where paternity or maternity is established, the natural father or mother acquires the status of "parent," and the child has the status of "child" of the parent, for inheritance purposes under Puerto Rican law. With respect to the rights of inheritance, Title 31 of the Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated, section 2435 provides: The rights of succession which the law grants natural children extends reciprocally in similar cases to the natural father or mother. |