<font color='blue' size='3' face='Comic Sans MS, sans-serif'><font size="3"><font face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">Sheri you are correct, I was in that situation</font></font><font color="blue" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif" size="3"> <div> <br> </div> <div> <br> </div> <div style="clear: both;"></div> <div> <br> </div> <div> <br> </div> <div style="font-family: helvetica,arial; font-size: 10pt; color: black;">-----Original Message-----<br> From: Sheri Fenley <sherifenley@gmail.com><br> To: JYoung6180@aol.com<br> Cc: apgpubliclist@apgen.org<br> Sent: Sun, Jan 9, 2011 8:17 pm<br> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Questions on Social Security Benefits Application<br> <br> <div id="AOLMsgPart_2_505459f4-18f2-4aa7-98f9-6849cc0ef7d9"> Joan, <div><br> </div> <div>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.</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Sheri Fenley</div> <div><br> </div> <div><br> </div> <div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;">I meant to use the words "representative payee" and not "benefits administrator"</span><br> <br> <div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:06 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a __removedlink__1635201977__href="mailto:JYoung6180@aol.com">JYoung6180@aol.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;"><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"> <div>Sheri-</div> <div> </div> <div>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. </div> <div> </div> <div>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. </div> <div> </div> <div>Joan</div> <div> </div> <div> <div>In a message dated 1/9/2011 5:02:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, <a __removedlink__1635201977__href="mailto:sherifenley@gmail.com">sherifenley@gmail.com</a> writes:</div> <blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid blue;"><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">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. <div><br> </div> <div>On the other hand, what the heck - order the record and see what they have on file,  LOL</div> <div><br> </div> <div>Sheri Fenley</div> <div>Stockton, California<br> <br> </div> </font></blockquote></div> </font></div> </blockquote></div> <br> </div> </div>  </div> </font></font>