## Facts

- Sherilyn M. Younger applied for Social Security child’s insurance benefits on behalf of her minor children, Kia R. Younger and Tia L. Younger, alleging they were the nonmarital children of Charles L. Costello, a deceased fully insured wage earner.
- Younger and Costello were never married, and there was no judicial decree establishing Costello’s paternity.
- Evidence offered to show paternity included affidavits asserting Costello publicly acknowledged the children, notes from a state social worker describing Costello’s interactions with the children, and testimony from Costello’s former roommate stating Costello was the father.
- Costello’s wife denied paternity.
- Official and financial records did not corroborate paternity: birth records, hospital records, and Costello’s obituary did not identify Costello as the father; a review of Costello’s tax records did not show support or acknowledgment.
- The Social Security Administration denied the claims initially and on reconsideration; after a de novo hearing, an ALJ denied benefits for failure to prove paternity; the Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Secretary’s determination that the claimants failed to establish child status through 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A) and the applicable state intestacy law.
2. Whether the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the administrative record regarding paternity and entitlement to benefits.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Secretary’s denial of benefits.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Younger did not prove Costello’s paternity under § 416(h)(2)(A) and the relevant intestacy standard.
- The court held that the ALJ adequately developed the record through record gathering and detailed questioning at the hearing.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant seeking child’s insurance benefits bears the burden to prove entitlement as the child of a deceased insured wage earner.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A), a claimant may establish “child” status by showing the claimant would inherit from the insured under the intestacy law of the insured’s state of domicile.
- Judicial review of the Secretary’s final decision is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the correct legal standards were applied.
- The ALJ must reasonably develop the record, including obtaining relevant documents and conducting an adequate hearing; the duty is satisfied by reasonable efforts and does not require the ALJ to obtain evidence that is speculative or unsupported by leads in the record.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld the denial of child’s insurance benefits because the administrative record, viewed as a whole, substantially supported the finding that paternity was not established under the Act’s state-intestacy incorporation provision, and the ALJ’s investigation and hearing sufficiently developed the record.


Younger ex rel. Younger v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1994)