Source: http://www.thomasbeltran.com/social-security/ssi-benefits/draper-v-colvin-part-3-the-poms-two-step-process-of-parent-established-first-party-snt/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:52:21+00:00

Document:
Draper v. Colvin, Part-3 - The POMS Two-Step Process of Parent-Established First Party Special Needs Trust.
Draper v. Colvin, Part-3 – The POMS Two-Step Process of Parent-Established First Party Special Needs Trust.
1 How to Establish a Valid SNT under the POMS in California.
1.1 A Parent Establishing a First-Party Special Needs Trust for a Child is a Two-Step Process.
2 Why Have a Parent Establish the Special Needs Trust in California?
How to Establish a Valid SNT under the POMS in California.
Draper v. Colvin found the POMS in question, POMS SI 01120.203, controlling on how a parent should establish a first-party special needs trust with a child’s assets. what the SSA regards as a valid special needs trust.
A Parent Establishing a First-Party Special Needs Trust for a Child is a Two-Step Process.
Why Have a Parent Establish the Special Needs Trust in California?
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A), the special needs trust is established “for the benefit of such individual by a parent, grandparent, legal guardian of the individual, or a court.” In other words, Stephany Ann Draper could not establish her own (d)(4)(A) special needs trust.
By contrast, a pooled special needs trust [42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(C)] can be established “by the parent, grandparent, or legal guardian of such individuals, by such individuals, or by a court.” In other words, Stephany Ann Draper, the “such individual” could establish an account in a pooled special needs trust by herself.
So, to avoid the time and additional costs of court establishment of a special needs trust, people opt for establishment of a 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A), special needs trust by a parent. Typically, establishment of the trust by a “legal guardian” is identical to establishment by a court, because the court will require the guardian to petition the court to establish the trust. See for example, Conservatorship of Kane, (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 400, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 378.
Under standing how the POMS two-step process really works is the key to understanding the Draper case. Future posts will discuss the underlying reasoning of this case and how the court appears to interpret the POMS.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1396
 § 1396
 § 1396