So, are you caring for a child who is under age 16 and entitled on the father's record? Or are you caring for a child who is disabled and entitled on the father's record? If not, that sentence doesn't apply to you, but I agree it is a bit difficult to understand.

However, do you really think that someone married for six months at age 22 SHOULD qualify on a former spouse's record 28 years later because they are now disabled? Do you think that is or should be the intent of the legislation? If the marriage duration length was not an issue, that could happen.

The whole idea of anyone getting Social Security benefits as a dependent or survivor is the theory that claimant suffered a financial loss from the death, disability or retirement of the worker. The marriage duration requirement at one time was 20 years. Just because you happened to be married to someone at some point in your life should not necessarily give you lifetime rights to benefits on that person. There has to be some kind of cutoff.