Tag: parent

10 Jan

Home DNA Tests – What’s an Estate Trustee to do when there is an unexpected result?

Stuart Clark Executors and Trustees Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

I recently blogged about the growing use of home DNA tests and what impact an unexpected result could have upon your rights as a beneficiary of an estate. While such a blog was from the perspective of an individual who discovered through a home DNA test that their biological father was not in fact the individual they previously believed it to be, and the potential impact such a finding could have upon their status as a beneficiary of their “father’s” estate if their interest was based on their status as a “child”, questions would also emerge in such a scenario if you were the Estate Trustee of such an estate regarding what you should do.

If you are the Estate Trustee of an estate in which a bequest is based on parentage (i.e. an intestacy or a bequest to a testator’s “issue” or “children”), and you discover that one of the beneficiaries has voluntarily taken a home DNA test which revealed that they were not in fact related to the deceased, could you still make a distribution to such a beneficiary? If you have already made a distribution to such a beneficiary, is there a risk that the other beneficiaries could now make a claim against you as Estate Trustee, alleging that you distributed the estate to the incorrect individuals and that they have suffered damages as a result?

In response to whether an Estate Trustee could potentially be liable to the other beneficiaries for historically paying out amounts to a beneficiary who it is later discovered was not actually related to the deceased, it would appear that the Estate Trustee likely would not be liable under such a scenario. In my previous blog I discussed the provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act (the “CLRA“) which establish a person’s legal parentage in Ontario, and the various presumptions establishing an individual’s father. While sections 13(1) and 14(1) of the CLRA allow the court to make a subsequent different declaration as to a person’s parentage, section 14(2) of the CLRA provides that such an Order “does not affect rights and duties that were exercised or performed, or interests in property that were distributed, before the order was set aside“. As a result, it would appear, arguably, that if an Estate Trustee historically made a payment to an individual based off of parentage, and a subsequent declaration is made by the court that the individual in question was not actually the parent of the beneficiary, the historic payment to the beneficiary could not be put in issue or reclaimed provided that at the time the payment was made the beneficiary was still presumed and/or declared to be the child of the deceased.

The issue of what an Estate Trustee is to do if a payment has not yet been made and they discover that an individual who they previously believed to be a beneficiary is not in fact related to the deceased could be more complicated. In the event that the other beneficiaries who could be affected by the distribution do not unanimously consent to continue to allow the distribution to the individual notwithstanding the results of the DNA test, it is possible that one or all of the other beneficiaries may later bring a claim against the Estate Trustee for negligence, alleging that the Estate Trustee knew about the results of the DNA test before making the distribution and that they have suffered damages as a result of the distribution. To offset such a risk, it may be wise for the Estate Trustee in such a scenario to bring an Application for the opinion, advice and direction of the court pursuant to section 60(1) of the Trustee Act and/or rule 14.05, asking the court to determine whether the distribution may still be made to the potential beneficiary in light of the results of the home DNA test.

Thank you for reading.

Stuart Clark

08 Jan

Home DNA Tests – Could you be disinherited by an unexpected result?

Stuart Clark General Interest Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

One of the most gifted items this past holiday season were apparently the home DNA tests which can reveal your genetic ancestry or even if you are predisposed to certain health conditions. As anyone who has taken one of these tests (myself included) can tell you, the test results also contain a long list of other individuals who have also taken the test who you are related to, allowing you to reconnect with long lost relatives.

While my own test results did not reveal any family secrets, the same cannot be said for other individuals who have taken the test, as there have been a growing number of articles recently about how home DNA tests have revealed family secrets which otherwise may never have come to light. Although not all of these secrets are necessarily negative, such as finding a long-lost sibling, others, such as finding out that the individual who you believed to be your father was not in fact your biological father, could be life changing. For the latter, the phenomena is apparently common enough that the Atlantic has reported that self-help groups have formed around the issue, such as the Facebook group “DNA NPE Friends”, with “NPE” standing for “Not Parent Expected”.

In reading through these stories I couldn’t help but wonder if having such a result could impact your potential entitlements as a beneficiary of an estate. What happens if, for example, the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father but the test reveals was not in fact your father should die intestate, or should leave a class gift to his “children” in his Will without specifically naming the children. Could finding out that you were not actually biologically related to your “father” result in you no longer being entitled to receive a benefit as a beneficiary? Could you potentially be disinherited as a beneficiary of an estate by voluntarily taking a home DNA test if your right to the gift is founded upon you being related to the deceased individual?

Who is legally considered an individual’s “parent” in Ontario is established by the Children’s Law Reform Act (the “CLRA“). Section 7(1) of the CLRA provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the person “whose sperm resulted in the conception of a child” is the parent of a child. Section 7(2) of the CLRA further provides for a series of presumptions regarding the identity of the individual’s “whose sperm resulted in the conception of a child“, including, for example, that there is a presumption that such an individual is the birth parent’s spouse at the time the child is born, or the individual in question certified the child’s birth as a parent of the child in accordance with the Vital Statistics Act (i.e. signed the birth certificate). To the extent that there are any questions about parentage, section 13(1) of the CLRA provides that any interested individual may apply to the court at any time after a child is born for a declaration that a person is or is not the legal parent of the child.

In applying these presumptions to our previous questions about the home DNA test, if, for example, the individual who you previously believed was your biological father was your birth mother’s “spouse” at the time you were born, or signed the birth certificate, it would appear that, subject to there being a declaration under section 13(1) of the CLRA to the contrary, there would continue to be a presumption at law that the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father would continue to be your legal “parent” in accordance with the CLRA. To this respect, in the absence of a formal declaration under section 13(1) of the CLRA that the individual was no longer your legal “parent”, there would appear to be an argument in favour of the position that the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father would continue to be your legal “parent”, and that you should continue to receive any benefits which may come to you as a “child” on the death of your “father”, whether on an intestacy or a class bequest to his “children” in his Will.

This presumption, of course, is subject to the ability of any interested person (i.e. the Estate Trustee or one of the other beneficiaries) to seek a formal declaration under section 13(1) of the CLRA that you were not in fact a “child” of the individual you believed to be your biological father. If such a formal declaration is ultimately made by the court, you would cease to be the legal “child” of the individual who you previously believed to be your biological father, and would likely lose any corresponding bequests which may have been made to you on an intestacy or as a member of the class “children” in the Will.

The use of DNA tests to establish the potential beneficiaries of an estate is not a new phenomenon (see: Proulx v. Kelly). What is new, however, are people voluntarily taking such tests en masse in a public forum, potentially voluntarily raising questions about their rights to receive an interest in an estate when such questions would not have existed otherwise.

Thank you for reading.

Stuart Clark

29 Apr

Posthumously-Conceived Children

Nick Esterbauer Estate & Trust, Support After Death Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

photo-1454908225854-b200322cd05a

Last month, an amendment to Minnesota’s Uniform Probate Code came into effect to limit the rights of children conceived after the death of one or more parents.

The addition under 524.2-120 of the Code states as follows (at Subdivision 10):

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section and subject to section 524.2-108, a parent-child relationship does not exist between a child of assisted reproduction and another person unless the child of assisted reproduction is in gestation prior to the death of such person.

The exception at section 524.2-108 provides that a child conceived before and born after death, who survives for a period of 120 hours, shall be treated as if living at the time of death of the deceased.  However, the update in the legislation clarifies that a child conceived after death does not constitute a child and would not, therefore, be entitled to related rights to inherit on intestacy or as a member of a class of beneficiaries created under a will.

In many other jurisdictions, including Ontario, there is limited clarity with respect to the rights of individuals conceived after death of a parent.  While the Succession Law Reform Act specifies (under the definition of “child” at section 1) that a child conceived before and born after death will be treated as if he or she had been living at the time of death of a parent or other family member, the same cannot be said of posthumously-conceived children with any certainty.

In certain circumstances, a surviving spouse may have the right to use genetic materials, being sperm or ova of the deceased spouse, to conceive a child in accordance with the terms of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.  However, there is no legislation in Ontario that explicitly provides or denies children conceived after death status as a child, as if conceived or born after death.  Case law in other jurisdictions suggests that inheritance rights to a parent’s estate and entitlement to death-related benefits may be more likely to attach to a child conceived after death if (1) a genetic relationship between the deceased parent and child exists, (2) consent is given to the posthumous use of genetic materials for conception, and (3) the evidence available suggests that the deceased agreed to support a child conceived using the preserved genetic materials.

As rates of assisted reproduction continue to increase, it will be interesting to see how this area of estate law develops in Ontario to address the issue of rights of posthumously-conceived children.

Thank you for reading and have a great weekend!

Nick Esterbauer

01 May

The birth of the biological single parent?

Hull & Hull LLP Estate & Trust Tags: , , , , , ,

 

I couldn’t help but do a double-take when I came across an interesting article in the Globe and Mail by Anne McIlroy with the above-captioned title. 

Ms. McIllroy comments on the latest advances in stem-cell research, which indicate that it may be possible for someone to become a biological single parent – the source of both the egg and the sperm! 

How it seems to work is that adult skin cells can be turned into stem cells, and once they have been reprogrammed, these cells can be turned into many of the specialized cells that make up the human body. If some of the reprogrammed stem cells were transformed into sperm, and others into eggs, together they could be used to create an embryo. 

It hasn’t happened yet, but the possibility has made this a hot topic.   While it may be a discussion the Canadian legislature is not yet prepared to engage in (we have one of the more restrictive laws governing stem cell research), I would expect that if and when things change, advancements such as this will have widespread impact. 

I wonder how it can affect the estate planning area: Would it simplify estate planning by carving out spousal bequests and/or claims? Would it impact on how children of a testator are defined and/or treated? Would it increase the strength of a dependant support claim by the biological single parent child versus that of a competing child born with two biological parents?

I find the concept of biological single parenthood to be bizarre, unnatural and a little scary.  But perhaps I’m just too much of a traditionalist to keep up with this rapidly changing world of ours. 

Have a great weekend!

Natalia

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET