Should a child born three years after his father’s death be eligible for survivor Social Security benefits? This is one of the knotty and novel questions which flow from advances in artificial reproductive technology and it is being studied right now by the Utah Supreme Court. Gayle Burns, a 38-year-old widow in Murray, Utah, is suing the Social Security Agency over a US$35,000 survivor benefit. She gave birth to her son Ian in 2003, three years after her husband Michael deposited sperm during his losing battle with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and two years after died.

Initially, Ian was awarded a survivor benefit, but last August the Agency decided that Ian was not Michael’s son under Utah law and demanded a refund. To comply, Mrs Burns was forced into personal bankruptcy. Now she and Ian want it back.

Sonny Miller, a Minnesota lawyer who has dealt with issues arising from posthumous conception, told the Wall Street Journal that the Agency’s reluctance to pay benefits in these cases was understandable. Benefits are paid to help families who have experienced a sudden death and loss of income. "It's not meant as something you expect to get when you make the decision to have a child," he said.

Most states define the parent-child relationship in terms of traditional reproduction, so that a parent must be alive at the time of conception. However, now that sex and reproduction have decoupled, legal problems arise. Only 11 states take new methods of conception into account. Courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona and Iowa have ruled that such children are entitled to Social Security benefits, but Courts in Florida, New Hampshire and Arkansas have ruled that they are not entitled. ~ Salt Lake Tribune, Aug 5; Wall Street Journal, Aug 3