dissenting.
The majority addresses the broad issue of whether a claimant seeking surviving children’s benefits must establish that he or she is the biological child of an insured wage earner without answering the more precise issue — whether 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(C)(i)(I) requires this claimant to prove paternity in addition to producing a written acknowledgment of paternity from the deceased wage earner. The majority accepts the Secretary’s interpretation of this statutory provision, yet fails to adequately support its legal conclusion. I believe the Secretary’s reading of section 416(h)(3)(C) is illogical, and frustrates the purpose underlying this statutory scheme. A more rational reading of the statute, consistent with the purpose of the Social Security Act, is this: if a claimant has a valid written acknowledgment of parentage, this evidence constitutes a statutory presumption of legitimacy for the purpose of the surviving children’s benefits provisions. A careful review of the record clearly shows that the Secretary cannot conclusively prove that Scott Luke is not the biological child of Gary Groth. As we are required to liberally construe the Social Security Act and to award benefits in marginal cases, I believe Scott should receive social security benefits. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from part II. B. of the majority’s opinion.
A. Threshold Requirement of Parentage:
The entitlement provision involved in this case provides benefits to every child who survives a fully insured individual if that child was dependent on the individual at the time of his or her death. 42 U.S.C. § 402(d). Under section 416(h)(3)(C), an “applicant who is the son or daughter of a fully and currently insured individual” will be deemed to be that individual’s child for eligibility purposes if:
(1) the individual “acknowledged in writing that the applicant is his or her son or daughter” before dying, subpara. (C)(i)(I);
(2) the individual had been declared by a court to be the parent, subpara. (C)(i)(II);
(3) the individual had been ordered by a court to support the applicant on the basis of parentage, subpara. (C)(i)(III); or
(4) the individual shows “by evidence satisfactory to the Secretary” that he or she is the claimant’s parent and the individual was living with or contributing to the support of the claimant at the time of death, subpara. (C)(ii).
The Secretary contends that the introductory language in paragraph (3), i.e., that the applicant is the son or daughter of an insured individual, creates a threshold question of whether the claimant is the biological child of the insured individual. According to the Secretary, if the claimant cannot prove this biological relationship, then written acknowledgments and court *981orders as to parentage are irrelevant. The district court agreed with this reading.
The majority approves the district court’s interpretation of section 416(h)(3)(C), citing the language of section 416(e), 416(h)(3)(C)(i)(I), 20 C.F.R. § 404.355, and the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3) as support. First, section 416(e) merely defines “child” as the “child or legally adopted child of an individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 426(e)(1). It sheds no light on the necessity of proving biological paternity in addition to proving a written acknowledgment of paternity.
Second, the Secretary’s regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.355, states that the claimant must be the natural child of the insured wage earner to be eligible for benefits under 416(h)(3)(C)(i), but it too fails to indicate how that relationship is to be proven. Furthermore, we need not accept the Secretary’s interpretation of the statutory provision or of its regulation if it conflicts with a logical reading of the statute. Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 507 n. 14, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2763, n. 14, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976). See also Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Federal Maritime Commission, 390 U.S. 261, 272, 88 S.Ct. 929, 935, 19 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1968) (construction of a statute by agency charged with its administration entitled to deference only if it has reasonable basis in law).
Third, the legislative history, found so helpful by the district court, provides:
The committee has therefore included in the bill a provision under which benefits would be paid to a child on the earnings record of his father, even though the child cannot inherit the father’s intestate property, if the father had acknowledged the child in writing, had been ordered by a court to contribute to the child’s support, had been judicially decreed to be the child's father, or is shown by other evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to be the child’s father and was living with or contributing to the support to the child. S.Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., [1965] U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1943, 2050.
This language hardly establishes that proof of biological parentage and a written acknowledgment of parentage are both required under the statute. In my view, this passage merely describes the effect of the amendment, and does not enunciate the two-part test being advanced by the Secretary.
As section 416(e), 20 C.F.R. § 404.355 and the legislative history really provide no guidance for this Court, I believe the question becomes whether the Secretary’s reading of this section is logical, whether it is consistent with the statutory mandate, and whether it furthers the policy underlying the statute. I believe the majority adopts an interpretation of 416(h)(3)(C) which is illogical and inconsistent.
It is illogical to assume that Congress would require, under subparagraph (C)(i)(I), that a claimant prove biological parentage through medical evidence in addition to providing an acknowledgment in writing to certify this very issue. If we accept the Secretary’s reading of paragraph (3)(C)(i), as the majority has done, we essentially require a claimant to prove parentage “by evidence satisfactory to the Secretary” in all cases, including those in which a claimant can prove parentage by documentation. The provisions of subparagraph (C)(i) thus become meaningless.
The majority cites several cases in which several circuits, including this one, have acknowledged that proof of a biological relationship is a necessary antecedent requirement under section 416(h)(3)(C)(ii). Of course, the language of that provision directly supports such an interpretation, as it provides that a claimant will be eligible for benefit if “such insured individual is shown by evidence satisfactory to the Secretary to be the mother or father of the applicant.” This language is not replicated in section 416(h)(3)(C)(i). We should not insert this requirement into subparagraph (C)(i) as a threshold requirement when to do so would nullify its effect.
The majority relies on language in McMillian by McMillian v. Heckler, 759 F.2d 1147, 1153 (4th Cir.1985) for the proposition that biological parentage is an ulti*982mate fact to be proven under either subpar-agraph (C)(i) or (C)(ii). Yet, the Fourth Circuit recognized, in dicta, that the Secretary’s asserted interpretation was illogical. It stated:
We admit, but need not in this case authoritatively accept, the force of claimant’s contention that in logic § 416(h)(3)(C) should not be construed to impose on claimants invoking either sub-paragraph (C)(i) or (C)(ii) any further independent requirement of proving biological parenting, i.e., that the requirements for establishing deemed dependent child status are fully stated within the two subparagraphs as free-standing, independent alternatives. 759 F.2d at 1151 (footnote omitted).
The Fourth Circuit has recently examined this interpretation again in Patterson v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 221 (4th Cir.1988) in which it stated:
In McMillian, this court indicated that, if called upon, it would probably reject the Secretary’s sought for construction, noting it to be internally inconsistent and redundant. Id. at 1152, n. 2. This court, in McMillian, however, affirmed the Secretary without deciding the question.
* * * Having the matter squarely before us now, we are convinced that the district court was correct [in rejecting the Secretary's threshold requirement]. Accord, Vance v. Heckler, 757 F.2d 1324 (D.C.Cir.1985). In Vance, benefits were awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(C)(i)(I) based solely upon a personal letter which acknowledged paternity. The court did not rest its decision upon biological evidence of actual paternity which the Secretary would here require to be proven at the outset. 839 F.2d at 224 (emphasis added).
Thus, while acknowledging that parentage is an ultimate fact to be proven by the claimant, the Fourth Circuit held in Patterson that a claimant makes this showing by producing an acknowledged writing or a court order of parentage. No additional threshold showing of biological parentage is required.
Based on the Fourth Circuit’s analysis in Patterson and McMillian, and the illogical results of the Secretary’s reading of paragraph (3)(C), I believe that the majority errs in finding that proof of a biological relationship of parentage is a “necessary antecedent requirement” under section 416(h)(3)(C)(i).
B. Statutory Presumption of Parentage:
Contrary to the position of the Secretary, the case law interpreting the surviving children’s benefits provisions appears to support the conclusion that if a written acknowledgment of paternity exists, as in this case, the claimant is to be statutorily presumed eligible for social security benefits.
Prior to 1965, an illegitimate child was denied surviving children’s benefits unless he or she could, under applicable state law, inherit intestate personal property from his father. S.Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., [1965] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1943, 2049. Unsatisfied with the inconsistent results of such a statutory scheme, Congress amended the Social Security Act to allow an illegitimate child to receive benefits “if the father had acknowledged the child in writing, had been ordered by a court to contribute to the child’s support, had been judicially decreed to be the child’s father, or is shown by other evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to be the child’s father and was living with or contributing to the support of the child.” Id. at 2050.
The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment as a method of relieving a child of the burden of showing individualized proof of legitimacy and dependency. Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 498, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2758, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976). In Mathews, the Supreme Court wrote:
Congress’ purpose in adopting the statutory presumptions of dependency [of section 416(h)(3)(C)] was obviously to serve administrative convenience. While Congress was unwilling to assume that *983every child of a deceased insured was dependent at the time of death, by presuming dependency on the basis of relatively readily documented facts, such as legitimate birth, or existence of a support order or paternity decree, which could be relied upon to indicate the likelihood of continued actual dependency, Congress was able to avoid the burden and expense of specific case-by-case determination in the large number of cases where dependency is objectively probable. 427 U.S. at 509, 96 S.Ct. at 2764.
Thus, according to the Supreme Court, sub-paragraphs (C)(i) and (C)(ii) codify administrative “short-cuts” to proving the dependency of illegitimate children.
Subparagraphs (C)(i) and (C)(ii) must also codify a method of proving legitimacy. Section 416(h)(3) provides that, if the conditions of subparagraphs (C)(i) or (C)(ii) are met, the claimant will be “deemed to be the child” of the insured individual. Under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(3), a child “deemed to be a child of a[n] * * * insured individual pursuant to * * * section 416(h)(3) of this title shall be deemed to be the legitimate child of such individual.” It is apparent from the reading of these two provisions, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of 416(h)(3)(C), that a claimant who provides a written acknowledgment of paternity from an insured individual is to be presumed the legitimate and dependent child of that individual.
In the present case, Groth claimed in a 1981 claim for social security disability benefits and acknowledged in a notarized writing that he was Scott’s natural father. The Social Security Administration (SSA) awarded benefits to Scott, rejecting Groth’s ex-wife’s claim that Groth could not have fathered the child. After the SSA terminated Groth’s disability benefits in 1982, Groth applied for social security benefits for his children, James and Scott. Benefits were denied, not because Scott was not the biological son of Groth, but because Groth himself did not qualify for these benefits. In March 1983, Groth applied a third time for social security benefits for Scott. Once again, Groth certified to the SSA that Scott was his natural child. I believe that Scott, who provided the Secretary with several written acknowledgments of paternity from Groth, is entitled to a statutory presumption that he is Groth’s legitimate child.
This presumption is further supported by the fact that Groth lived with Scott for three years. Groth held himself out as Scott’s father to friends and family, and supported Scott with his Veterans Administration Pension. Jeanette Luke provided the SSA with all of Groth’s written acknowledgments, in addition to letters from Groth’s attorney, David Buechler, and family friends Jeanne DeBelts and Joyce Van Loh, who stated that Groth had told them that Scott was his natural child. The Freeman Community Hospital birth certificate lists Groth as Scott’s father. The Veterans Administration continues to recognize Scott as Groth's child.
The factual problem in the present case is that Groth was allegedly physically unable to father children at the time Scott was born. Although not proven conclusively, the Secretary and the majority focus on this fact and reject the numerous written statements made by Groth as “self-serving.” Although this case raises the question of whether the statutory presumption afforded by section 416(h)(3)(C) is irrebutta-ble, I need not reach that issue as the Secretary has provided us with no conclusive medical evidence to support the allegation that Groth could not father children and to rebut the presumption of parentage. The records of the Crystal Medical Clinic, where Groth allegedly had a vasectomy, were destroyed by fire in 1981 and the doctor who allegedly performed the surgery is now deceased. Thus, there is no way to document that the vasectomy ever occurred. The only evidence supporting the Secretary’s decision is the fact that Dr. Kaufman’s semen test of Groth after Jeanette became pregnant contained no sperm. Although such a test indicates that Groth may not have fathered Scott, it does not conclusively disprove a biological relationship. I am not convinced that Scott’s claim for surviving children’s benefits is completely without merit.
*984The purpose of the children’s benefits provisions is to provide support for all children of deceased insureds who can demonstrate their need in terms of dependency at the time of the insured’s death. This protection extends to all children who have lost either the actual support of an insured parent or the anticipated support which that parent would have expected to furnish had his death not intervened. See Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628, 634, 94 S.Ct. 2496, 2500, 41 L.Ed.2d 363 (1974); Suarez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 755 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.), cert denied, 474 U.S. 844, 106 S.Ct. 133, 88 L.Ed.2d 109 (1985); Parsons for Bryant v. Health and Human Services, 762 F.2d 1188, 1190 (4th Cir.1985). As remedial legislation, enacted as a national insurance program, the Social Security Act, particularly those provisions relating to children, is to be accorded a liberal application in consonance with its humanitarian aims. See Doran v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir.1982) (liberal construction of requirement that father contribute to the support of an unborn illegitimate child); Eisenhauer v. Mathews, 535 F.2d 681, 686 (2d Cir.1976) (liberal interpretation of provisions for stepchildren); Holmes v. Weinberger, 423 F.Supp. 149, 154 (E.D.N.Y.1976) (liberal construction of terms in 42 U.S.C. § 402). A court is not to interpret the act so as to withhold benefits in marginal cases. Smith v. Heckler, 820 F.2d 1093, 1095 (9th Cir.1987); Adams v. Weinberger, 521 F.2d 656, 659 (2d Cir.1975).
The Secretary has maintained that much deference should be given to its decision to deny benefits. As it argued in Jimenez, such deference to the agency “is necessary to prevent spurious claims because ‘[t]o the unscrupulous person, all that prevents him from realizing ... gain is the mere formality of a spurious acknowledgment of paternity or a collusive paternity suit with the mother of an illegitimate child who is herself desirous or in need of the additional cash.’ ” 417 U.S. at 635, 94 S.Ct. at 2501. Yet, we need not defer to an illogical interpretation of the statute. Nor need we deny benefits in marginal cases merely because the Secretary fears “spurious claims.” See NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291, 85 S.Ct. 980, 988, 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965) (courts need not rubber-stamp administrative decisions that are inconsistent with statutory mandate or that frustrate policy underlying statute). There has been absolutely no evidence presented in this case that would indicate that Groth acknowledged Scott as his son merely for his personal gain. Similarly, there has been no evidence of collusion or fraud on the part of Groth and Jeanette Luke. The desire to protect the social security trust fund from spurious claims should not override the mandate to award children’s benefits in close cases. Even if, in fact, Groth was not Scott’s father, we should not deny benefits unless the lack of a biological relationship can be conclusively proven. If the child has a valid written acknowledgment of parentage, and the Secretary cannot rebut the statutory presumption of legitimacy, that child should receive the financial protection of social security benefits.