## Facts

- Cynthia Jones sought Social Security child’s insurance benefits for her minor son, Brandon Jones, claiming the deceased insured wage earner, Ivory Claxton, was Brandon’s biological father.
- Jones and Claxton were never married; there was no formal paternity adjudication, legitimation, or genetic testing.
- After Brandon’s birth, Jones and Brandon lived in St. Louis above Claxton’s store for roughly eight or nine years.
- During those years, Claxton’s involvement and contributions were sporadic, including occasional groceries, toys, and clothing.
- Jones and Brandon later moved to Illinois; during the final one to two years before Claxton’s death, Claxton had no contact with Brandon and provided no support.
- An ALJ denied benefits, finding the statutory requirements were not met; the Appeals Council allowed that decision to stand.
- The district court affirmed; on appeal, Jones pursued only the federal “paternity-plus-support” route and did not press any state intestacy theory.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that Claxton was not “contributing to the support” of Brandon at the time of Claxton’s death as required by 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(C)(ii) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.366.
2. Whether the court should consider a Missouri intestacy-based entitlement theory that was not meaningfully advanced in the district court or on appeal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Claxton did not make “regular and substantial” contributions and thus was not contributing to Brandon’s support at the time of death.
- The court declined to consider the Missouri intestacy theory because it had not been properly preserved or argued.
- Any dispute about the standard applied to paternity was immaterial because the support element independently defeated the claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(C)(ii), an out-of-wedlock child must satisfy the statute’s conditions, including that the insured was contributing to the child’s support at the time of death (absent other qualifying alternatives).
- The Commissioner may apply 20 C.F.R. § 404.366’s requirement that contributions be “regular and substantial,” not merely occasional gifts or intermittent aid.
- Judicial review of a benefits denial is limited to whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error; courts do not reweigh evidence.
- Appellate courts generally will not consider theories not clearly presented and developed below; waiver/forfeiture applies where the opposing party had no fair notice to litigate the issue.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of child’s insurance benefits because the record supported the agency’s finding that the insured provided no regular, substantial support at the time of death, and the claimant could not revive an unpreserved intestacy-based theory on appeal.


Jones for Jones v. Chater, 101 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 1996)