[APG Public List] Questions on Social Security Benefits Application

Sheri Fenley sherifenley at gmail.com
Sun Jan 9 18:17:20 MST 2011


No, all I was trying to say was that in order for the children to get the
benefits from SSA their relationship to the father is all that would have
been required.  Proving the marriage of the children's parents would not
have been required. This would have been done with the birth certificates of
the children, not the marriage certificate of the parents.

Sheri Fenley

I meant to use the words "representative payee" and not "benefits

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:06 PM, <JYoung6180 at aol.com> wrote:

>  Sheri-
> Now you are confusing me...are you saying that the deceased wife and her
> husband (the now-deceased wage earner) are NOT the parents of the children?
> If they are, then children born of their marriage would be assumed to have
> been legal children of the wage earner and the marriage records should have
> been on file for the claim to have been approved. Supporting birth records
> for the children would also have been on file.
> Minor children who are beneficiaries would have had a representative payee
> who would have been required to report that benefits were used for the
> children.
> Joan
>  In a message dated 1/9/2011 5:02:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> sherifenley at gmail.com writes:
> That may be true, but the benefits paid to the children would be sent to a
> benefit administrator who doesn't have to be the children's mother or even
> the next of kin.  Proof of the relationship of the children to the deceased
> wage earner is what is required not the marriage of the deceased wage earner
> in order for the children to receive their benefits.
> On the other hand, what the heck - order the record and see what they have
> on file,  LOL
> Sheri Fenley
> Stockton, California
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20110109/73f66c5e/attachment.htm>

More information about the APGPublicList mailing list