Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
George Williams and M met about a year before his death. They fell in love and entered upon a sexual relationship, exclusive on her side, but they lived apart. M had a bad credit record, and to enable her to obtain electricity and telephone service, Williams, who had either a good credit record or no credit record (we do not know which), subscribed to these services for her in his name. He also paid a couple of utility bills, although the record contains no details. M became pregnant, and both she and Williams told their friends that he was the father. There is no reason to doubt that they were speaking truthfully. The testimony of friends is that Williams was thrilled by the prospect of becoming the father of a son, as he hoped the fetus would turn out to be. Of course, all this evidence may have been trumped up for this proceeding, but there is no indication of that. Two months after M became pregnant, George Williams was stabbed to death in a brawl outside a bar. He had never made a written acknowledgment of parentage. He had never been decreed a parent. There is no contention that the law of Wisconsin would have entitled Tarelle to inherit from Williams had he left an estate. There was no marriage, common law or otherwise. And Williams did not live with M. The only remaining route for establishing Tarelle's eligibility for benefits was to show that Williams had contributed to the child's support during the two months of pregnancy before Williams' unexpected death. The administrative law judge found not only that Williams had not contributed to the support of Tarelle (or rather the fetus that was to become Tarelle seven months later) within the meaning of the statute and its implementing regulations, but also that M had failed to prove that Williams was the father. The court ruled against M, and she appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co