evidence showing a clear intent to adopt as soon as possible. The technical adoption decree was delayed by the Pennsylvania requirement of a six (6) month custody of the child. The child was an infant acquired shortly before the death of Mr. Kilby, which sad event occasioned the beginning of the entitlement period. There was a written agreement to adopt entered into with the natural parent. There was clear evidence of the intent that the child should share in the estate of the adopting parents, and this was held controlling for equitable adoption in Pennsylvania.
On the other hand, the present record shows that although there was no impediment to the adoption for a period of thirty (30) years, the plaintiff did nothing to effectuate the adoption until she knew she was entitled to disability. It would appear that there was no especial desire on plaintiff's part to have her disabled sister share in her estate until it appeared that there would be compensation forthcoming.
In addition, it may be noted that Kilby v. Folsom, supra, was decided prior to the amendment to the Act in question which created a twenty-four (24) month grace period after disability, during which plaintiff had ample time to adopt her sister without her motives being questioned.
It would appear that Congress had remedied any need for hardships which might have occurred but for judicial interpretation as in Kilby v. Folsom, supra.
Plaintiff bases another contention upon the fact that the benefit award dated June 29, 1960 indicated two dates under the column headed 'Date of Entitlement' with a corresponding larger amount of benefit rate beginning on the most recent date which was January 1959. There is no evidence that the two dates and differing amounts have any significance as to plaintiff's entitlement date as far as her disability is concerned. Most probably the dates reflect an increase in rates. In any event, it is clear from the record that the two dates do not represent any changed circumstances in plaintiff's disability status and, therefore, the later date has absolutely no significance with regard to the running of the twenty-four (24) month grace period for effectuating adoption. Plaintiff's contention that the latter date, January 1959, is the most recent entitlement date is without merit.
And now, this twenty-second day of January, 1964, in accordance with the foregoing Opinion, it is ordered that the motion of defendant, Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, for summary judgment be and the same is hereby granted and the Complaint is dismissed.
Accordingly, it is further ordered that the motion of plaintiff, Sadie M. Hashem, be and the same is hereby denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.