Pension Benefits for Children Conceived After Death

[chanel]

NEWARK — Francia Prystauk stood before state pension board members earlier this month with a kind of story they had never heard before.

Her husband Gary, a retired Newark police captain, had died in a scuba diving accident in 2006, and she was there to seek pension benefits for their son. A routine enough request, except for one crucial detail — the child was conceived after her husband’s death.

Doctors had removed her husband’s sperm within hours of his death. The following year, Prystauk, became pregnant through in vitro fertilization and gave birth to Jacob Gary Stephen Prystauk nine months later.

He’s now 3 years old and recognized by court order as Gary Prystauk’s son. But is he entitled to pension benefits?

The police and firefighter’s pension board simply doesn’t know what to do. So it is referring the case to the Attorney General’s Office for legal review.

Board chairman John Sierchio said pension rules don’t take into account the scientific advances that allow for posthumous conception.

“We’ve never had this type of issue before,” he said. “There’s a lot at stake here, and we just want to get it right.”

For Prystauk, the issue is crystal clear.

“Jacob had a father,” she said. “He just happened to pass away.”

If the board rules in her favor, she will receive an additional $1,282.05 a month, on top of the monthly $4,273.50 she receives as the widow of a retired police officer.

Danette Molina, Prystauk’s lawyer, said the state does not have laws on the rights of posthumously conceived children

Newark police captain's widow seeks pension benefits for son conceived through in vitro fertilization | NJ.com

Interesting story. My heart says that the child should be eligible. But when I look at how much she is already getting - $50K? Is that tax free? ..

What say you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No way.

Only people who are actually living when a parent dies should be given benefits. The last time I checked, spermatozoa and ova are not considered people. Now if she was pregnant when her husband died that would be a different issue.

 

[editec]

The woman lost her husband in the line of duty to the community.

They owe her and the deceased husband's kid, too.

 

[strollingbones]

way....the pension does cover all his children....

 

[Skull Pilot]

way....the pension does cover all his children....

They weren't children when he died, they were cells frozen in a test tube.

 

[editec]

way....the pension does cover all his children....

They weren't children when he died, they were cells frozen in a test tube.

True.

Do a paternity test of them, though.

They're his kids.

 

[Skull Pilot]

way....the pension does cover all his children....

They weren't children when he died, they were cells frozen in a test tube.

True.

Do a paternity test of them, though.

They're his kids.

They are not kids at all.

So what's next we have to pay SS benefits for frozen sperm? Can we claim frozen sperm and eggs on our tax forms as dependents?

 

[xotoxi]

I think it should be doubled.

 

[strollingbones]

by all legal and biological definations the child is his

 

[boedicca]

The child is biologically his, but he has nothing to do with its creation other than to be harvested for sperm cells. As tragic as his death is, the mother made the sole decision to have the child after he died, and should be solely responsible - not the taxpayers. Her existing pension is far more than the income upon which many families raise children.

 

[WillowTree]

The child is biologically his, but he has nothing to do with its creation other than to be harvested for sperm cells. As tragic as his death is, the mother made the sole decision to have the child after he died, and should be solely responsible - not the taxpayers. Her existing pension is far more than the income upon which many families raise children.

True, he was sorta raped and did not give consent to have a child.

 

[boedicca]

I wouldn't call it sort of raped. He was a tissue donor after death, similar to many people who donate organs.

Using the mother's logic, sperm donors' estates should name any progeny heirs.

 

[goldcatt]

Good question. A lot depends on the actual wording of the contract that sets up the pension.

"Should" the child receive pension benefits? In my opinion only, I'd say yes. He is the officer's child and has been acknowledged as such by the law, why should he not receive the same benefit as any other child?

But without all of the relevant facts and language it's hard to say for sure.

 

[thereisnospoon]

NEWARK — Francia Prystauk stood before state pension board members earlier this month with a kind of story they had never heard before.

Her husband Gary, a retired Newark police captain, had died in a scuba diving accident in 2006, and she was there to seek pension benefits for their son. A routine enough request, except for one crucial detail — the child was conceived after her husband’s death.

Doctors had removed her husband’s sperm within hours of his death. The following year, Prystauk, became pregnant through in vitro fertilization and gave birth to Jacob Gary Stephen Prystauk nine months later.

He’s now 3 years old and recognized by court order as Gary Prystauk’s son. But is he entitled to pension benefits?

The police and firefighter’s pension board simply doesn’t know what to do. So it is referring the case to the Attorney General’s Office for legal review.

Board chairman John Sierchio said pension rules don’t take into account the scientific advances that allow for posthumous conception.

“We’ve never had this type of issue before,” he said. “There’s a lot at stake here, and we just want to get it right.”

For Prystauk, the issue is crystal clear.

“Jacob had a father,” she said. “He just happened to pass away.”

If the board rules in her favor, she will receive an additional $1,282.05 a month, on top of the monthly $4,273.50 she receives as the widow of a retired police officer.

Danette Molina, Prystauk’s lawyer, said the state does not have laws on the rights of posthumously conceived children

Newark police captain's widow seeks pension benefits for son conceived through in vitro fertilization | NJ.com

Interesting story. My heart says that the child should be eligible. But when I look at how much she is already getting - $50K? Is that tax free? ..

What say you?

No.
It is these kinds of excesses brought by legal loop holes that keep taxpayers who fund these benefits enslaved to government.
IMO public sector work benefits should be no more, no less lucrative than those found in the private sector.
Those serving should not be more well off than the served.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The woman lost her husband in the line of duty to the community.

They owe her and the deceased husband's kid, too.

"They owe"...who is "they"?
The pension can go to the widow. She is getting that. Enough.
This is an attempt by the widow at a money grab.
The story offers the perception that the widow created another child to enrich herself. She is getting one pension already. If she is having financial problems, perhaps she should consider finding a job like the rest of us in the private sector would have to.
You do realize the NJ State pension fund is insolvent.

 

[goldcatt]

The woman lost her husband in the line of duty to the community.

They owe her and the deceased husband's kid, too.

"They owe"...who is "they"?
The pension can go to the widow. She is getting that. Enough.
This is an attempt by the widow at a money grab.
The story offers the perception that the widow created another child to enrich herself. She is getting one pension already. If she is having financial problems, perhaps she should consider finding a job like the rest of us in the private sector would have to.
You do realize the NJ State pension fund is insolvent.

It's a question of contract, no more and no less.

If the contract is written to apply to all children, period, with no limitations or stipulations, the pension fund must honor its end of the bargain it agreed to.

If the contract is written so as to apply to dependent children, then this child was never a dependent and IMO likely would not qualify.

It sounds like the language isn't exactly clear, so they've asked for an expert opinion. Let them sort it out.

The issue of NJ's financial status is irrelevant to whether it should have to honor its contractual obligations.