Although, the evidence indicates NH acknowledged in writing that the beneficiary was his child, the DNA evidence and court order indicate the claimant did not meet the threshold requirement of section 216(h)(3) of being NH’s daughter. § 382.013(2)(c)); POMS GN 00306.120B; POMS GN ATL00306.120B (showing that in Florida, the father’s name on the birth certificate creates the presumption he provided written consent). You have asked our opinion as to whether Theodore W. S~ (S~) for purposes of the Social Security Act (Act), given a Florida court's determination that Theodore is S~'s legitimate child and a blood test that shows Theodore is someone else's child.The claimant currently receives CIB benefits on the NH’s record. Thus, NH’s name on Beneficiary’s birth certificate is sufficient to show NH provided a written acknowledgment of paternity. For the reasons set out below, we believe Theodore is S~'s child for purposes of the Act.
Uncomfortable being alone with him, she said she was sleepy and feigned a yawn. He moved towards her, attempting to flirt, she thought, and suddenly started tickling her.TN 31 (09-16)Date: June 1, 2016 The number holder (NH) was domiciled in Florida when he filed for child Insurance benefits (CIB) on the claimant’s behalf; therefore, we look to Florida intestacy law to determine whether the claimant is the NH’s child. Thus, if there is evidence that the NH and Aissa consented in writing to the insemination, the NH is presumed to be the twins' father, and this presumption cannot be rebutted by additional evidence. The Florida court has not changed its ruling that the child is the NH's legitimate child.The information provided does not indicate that NH ever participated in a marriage ceremony with claimant’s mother. If, however, the NH and Aissa did not consent in writing to the insemination, further examination of Florida law is required. If the child is recognized as the NH's legitimate child under Florida law, he would be the NH's child under Tennessee law.That same day in Miami, Jennifer Scott, 47, went to court for the flip side of that judicial ruling: Now Florida also must let gay and lesbian couples divorce. "It let all the angst, frustration and anxiety that was lying under the surface for six years finally be released.'' Until Tuesday, same-sex couples were trapped in a legal limbo sometimes known in gay and lesbian circles as "wed-lock." They had married in other states, but Florida considered their union illegal, and would not divorce them.Nor could they disentangle where they married because of long residency requirements for divorce.
A year and a half ago, Scott met her new love, Monica Strickland, 50, but they couldn't marry anywhere if Scott couldn't get divorced.