Beatrice Segovia filed an application on behalf of her children, seeking benefits payable to surviving children under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402(d). Segovia was never married to Alex Rivas, the father of the children and deceased-insured, and her claim was denied.
At a hearing before an administrative law judge Segovia had the burden of proving paternity and the dependency of the children in order to qualify them for social security benefits. The AU found that while Rivas was the natural father of the children they were not dependent upon him because he was not contributing to their support nor were they residing with him at the time of his death.1 Segovia sought judicial review. The trial court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Appellate review in a case of this kind is limited to the determination whether the findings of the AU are supported by substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole. If we find that measure of evidence, the Secretary’s decision must be affirmed. Allen v. Schweiker, 642 F.2d 799 (5th Cir.1981).
At the hearing Segovia testified that she lived with Alex Rivas, the deceased wage-earner, for about ten of the last twelve months of his life. Her testimony was supported by several witnesses.
On the other hand, the evidence is undisputed that Rivas was married to Vidala C. Rivas and two children were born to their marriage. City health records reflect that Rivas’ residence at the time of his death was with his legal wife at 230 Anton in San Antonio. Segovia declared in the application she filed on behalf of the children that the children were living with her and were not living with Rivas at the time of his death. She also stated that Rivas had not contributed regularly to the children’s support. We find substantial evidence in support of the decision by the AU, and the order granting summary judgment must be AFFIRMED.2