Document: 344 U.S. 82 73 S.Ct. 122 97 L.Ed. 111 BAUMET et al.v.UNITED STATES al. No. 39. Argued Oct. 15, 1952. Decided Nov. 17, Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1953. See 916, 332. Mr. Louis A. D'Agosto, New York City, for petitioner. Morton Liftin, Washington, D.C., the United States. Thomas Thacher, respondent Peters. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. 1 Based on conflicting claims to proceeds a National Service Life Insurance policy, this is companion case States v. Henning, 66, 114. 2 The controversy bottomed following facts: At time insured serviceman's death in 1942, his policy designated John J. Peters, uncle, as sole beneficiary. Challenging uncle's standing permissible beneficiary under statute, William Baumet, insured's natural father, instituted an action claim proceeds.1 Before that came trial, Peters died.2 After subsequent trial cause, District Court found and wife Julie had stood loco parentis from 1938 until death, father's contemporaneous conduct amounted abandonment son.3 Concluding person parentis, was validly beneciary Act,4 it dismissed Baumet's complaint. Accordingly, court awarded installments which matured during Peters' lifetime personal representative, thereafter maturing individually who 'last bore' parental relationship insured.5 Appeals affirmed.6 It agreed 'after father never saw him, manifested no interest career contributed nothing toward support'; fact, there 'a permanent estrangement between them.'7 And approved Court's allocation policy's proceeds. In so holding, assumed estates deceased beneficiaries were proper takers, foster parents long supplanted insured. any event, thought, 'the can have but one maternal parent paternal parent.'8 We granted certiorari, 343 925, 72 764. 3 For reasons detailed supra, we hold may not take Act. award representative must therefore fall. regard claim, findings sharply reveal Baumet before son's 'abandoned son' ceased be truth fact. He now retrieve discarded robes lay proceeds; rule otherwise would foil plain intent 1942 amendments. Since parents, he, relationship, he cannot qualify taker by devolution § 602(h)(3)(C) reason mother, survivor those her own right all accrued 4 Reversed. 5 FRANKFURTER JACKSON, stated dissenting JACKSON 114, dissent refusal permit beneficiary's estate share 6 DOUGLAS, part. 7 I think should pari passu. believe well mother No law, dictionary, form words change biological remains matter how estranged child become. A stranger become parent; transmute into stranger. died 1936, raised behalf. However, infant half-brothers half-sisters their guardian ad litem filed asserting they followed priority ladder 602(h)(3), 38 U.S.C. 802(h)(3), U.S.C.A. 802(h)(3). But 602(h)(3)(D) conditioned absence takers qualifying 602(h)(3)(C). find such taker, need considered here. John's executrix, moved substitution stead. denied motion, ground rights extinguished death. S.D.N.Y.1948, 81 F.Supp. 1012. reversed, holding passed estate. Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 806, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 923, 70 611, 94 1346. followed. unreported are reprinted at pp. 10 24 Appendix Brief §§ 601(f), 602(g), 801(f), 802(g), 802(g). 602(h)(3)(C), 802(h)(3)(C), 802(h)(3)(C). States, 1951, 191 194. page 195—196. 8 194, 197.

Category: 8