Are you preparing for your legacy planning? If you have minor children whom you wish to provide for after your passing, it is crucial to ensure compliance with Florida Statutes and adhere to recent legal precedents. For example, you should consider the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Commissioner of Social Security.
In a recent ruling by the Florida Supreme Court, Ms. Steele’s application for Social Security benefits on behalf of her minor child was denied following the death of her spouse. The Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of Florida Statutes and intestacy laws, which stipulate that children conceived using a deceased person’s sperm or eggs cannot make claims against the decedent’s estate unless expressly provided for in the decedent’s will.
The Court addressed the pivotal query of whether the minor child was “provided for” within the purview of Fla. Stat. § 742.17(4) under Florida law. However, as the Court arrived at a conclusive determination on this issue, it declined to address the secondary inquiry regarding whether Florida law sanctions inheritance of intestate property by a posthumously conceived child who is provided for in the decedent’s will.
Philip and Kathleen Steele conceived their son via in vitro fertilization (IVF), utilizing sperm samples provided by Mr. Steele, prior to his death. The relevant statute specifies that children conceived from a deceased person’s genetic material are ineligible to claim against the estate unless explicitly named in the decedent’s will. Despite Mr. Steele having prepared a will naming his wife as primary beneficiary and making provisions for any “after-born” children after her passing, the court found that these conditions were not met. The language of the will appeared to anticipate children conceived but not yet born at the time of its drafting, rather than those conceived posthumously.
Under the statute, for the minor child conceived via IVF to be eligible to claim inheritance, they must be explicitly provided for in the will, and the will must demonstrate the decedent’s anticipation of potential posthumous conception of a child prior to their death. Consequently, if the child is not provided for in the will, they are ineligible to make a claim against the estate according to statutory requirements.
While the apparent intention is to safeguard the descendants of sperm donors under intestacy laws, this approach can pose substantial risks to safeguarding one’s family in the event of unforeseen circumstances. The case did not delve into the relationship between the decedent and the child, nor did it fully consider Mr. Steele’s intent when he provided sperm to his wife for the purpose of starting a family. Consequently, the law may not adequately account for intent, as indicated by the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling that Mr. Steele could not have foreseen the conception of a child after his death.
Regrettably, a comprehensive estate plan would have ensured that Ms. Steele and her child with her spouse were adequately provided for, including the receipt of applicable social security benefits to which the child was entitled.
It is evident that the law’s current framework may not fully account for such nuanced family dynamics and intentions, highlighting the necessity for individuals to seek expert legal counsel when preparing their estate plans. By doing so, individuals can ensure that their wishes are clearly articulated and legally safeguarded, thereby protecting their families from potential uncertainties in the future.
For further guidance on how to tailor your estate planning documents to reflect your specific familial circumstances and intentions, we encourage you to contact us for a consultation. We are committed to assisting you in executing your wishes effectively and ensuring comprehensive protection for your loved ones.
