I went through something similar with my son who became disabled at 19. The key thing that helped us was getting everything in writing from SSA. When you do talk to them (whether through that Claimyr service someone mentioned or directly), ask them to send you a written summary of what benefits your daughter will be eligible for as a survivor. Also, since her father has other dependents, you might want to consider consulting with a disability attorney who specializes in Social Security cases. Many will do a free consultation and can help you understand exactly how the family maximum will affect her benefits. The peace of mind is worth it when you're dealing with your child's financial security. One more tip - start keeping detailed records of all her medical appointments and treatments now. If they do a continuing disability review after her father passes, having everything organized will make the process much smoother during what will already be a difficult time.

I work as a benefits counselor and see these situations frequently. Your daughter's benefits will definitely increase when her father passes away - she'll move from auxiliary benefits (50% of his PIA) to survivor benefits (75% of his PIA). The fact that you weren't married to her father doesn't matter since paternity was legally established. However, with his current wife and two minor children also eligible for survivor benefits, the family maximum will likely apply. Each survivor would normally get 75%, but if that total exceeds the family maximum (usually 150-180% of his benefit), everyone's benefit gets reduced proportionally. I'd strongly recommend getting a benefit estimate in writing from SSA before any changes occur. Also, make sure your daughter's disability onset date is clearly documented as before age 22 - this is crucial for maintaining her eligibility as a disabled adult child throughout these transitions.

As someone who's been working in Social Security policy research for over a decade, I wanted to add some technical context that might be helpful. The automatic recalculation process mentioned throughout this thread operates on what's called a "substitution year" basis - SSA compares your new annual earnings to each of the 35 years currently used in your benefit calculation and substitutes any year where your new earnings are higher. What's particularly interesting is that this can happen even decades after you initially claimed. I've seen cases where someone who claimed early worked sporadically for 10-15 years afterward and saw multiple benefit increases over time as their part-time earnings gradually replaced several low-earning years from their youth. The key point everyone should understand is that your benefit calculation is truly dynamic as long as you continue to earn covered wages or self-employment income. Also, for those concerned about tracking - the SSA's internal systems are actually quite robust at capturing earnings data automatically from employer W-2 reports and self-employment tax filings, so while keeping your own records is smart, the vast majority of earnings updates happen seamlessly without any action required from the beneficiary.

This technical explanation is incredibly helpful! As someone who's been wondering about the long-term implications of working sporadically after claiming, knowing that the "substitution year" process can continue working in my favor for years or even decades is really encouraging. I hadn't realized that even intermittent part-time work could gradually replace multiple low-earning years from earlier in my career. Your point about the SSA's internal systems being robust at capturing earnings automatically is also reassuring - I've been worried about whether I need to manually notify them about my part-time work, but it sounds like the W-2 and tax filing process handles most of that automatically. Having this kind of policy research perspective really helps put all the personal experiences shared in this thread into a broader context. It's fascinating that the benefit calculation remains truly dynamic throughout your entire working life, not just until you claim. Thank you for bringing this professional insight to the discussion!

As a newcomer to this community, I've been reading through this entire discussion with fascination! The level of expertise and real-world experience shared here is remarkable. One angle I haven't seen fully explored is the Medicare coordination aspect. Since you're both planning significant decisions around age 65 when Medicare kicks in, it might be worth considering how your Social Security claiming strategy aligns with healthcare coverage transitions. If your wife claims at 62 while you continue working with employer health insurance, you'll need to navigate the gap coverage for her until Medicare eligibility at 65. But if she waits until closer to 65 to claim any benefits, you might be able to coordinate both the Social Security claiming and Medicare enrollment more seamlessly. Also, I'm curious about the impact of working until 65 on your own benefit calculation. Since Social Security uses your highest 35 years of earnings, those final working years (especially if they're high-earning years) could potentially increase your PIA, which would then improve the spousal benefit calculation for your wife. The mathematical analysis everyone has provided clearly shows the advantages of waiting, but I wonder if there are any optimization opportunities by fine-tuning the exact timing around your work cessation, Medicare enrollment, and benefit claiming dates? This thread has been incredibly educational - thank you to everyone who has shared their insights and experiences!

As a newcomer to this community, I'm amazed by the depth of knowledge and analysis in this thread! This has been incredibly educational for someone just beginning to navigate these complex Social Security decisions. What strikes me most from reading everyone's contributions is how this decision involves so many interconnected factors beyond just the basic early claiming reduction. The compounding effects mentioned by several members - reduced COLAs over time, permanent impact on survivor benefits, tax implications, healthcare coverage gaps, and the timing coordination with Medicare - really highlight why this deserves careful analysis rather than a quick decision. I'm particularly grateful for the members who shared their real-world experiences, both positive and negative outcomes. @Javier Torres's experience of waiting until FRA and seeing the $300-400 monthly difference really puts the math in perspective, while @Zachary Hughes's regret about claiming early provides a valuable cautionary tale. The hybrid strategies suggested by @Diego Fernández and others - like having the lower earner claim early while the higher earner delays until 70 - seem worth exploring as potential middle-ground approaches that balance early income needs with long-term optimization. For anyone else following this thread and facing similar decisions, it seems clear that while the mathematical optimization generally favors waiting, individual circumstances around health, employment, risk tolerance, and cash flow needs are equally important considerations. Thank you to everyone who has shared their expertise - this community is an incredible resource!

I'm new to this community but going through a similar situation with my own benefit planning. Reading through everyone's responses has been incredibly helpful! It sounds like the key takeaway is that you need to get the exact monthly benefit amounts in writing for both scenarios before making any decision. From what I'm understanding, the $10k retroactive payment might sound attractive upfront, but if it permanently reduces your monthly benefit by even $100-200, that could cost you tens of thousands over your lifetime. At your current survivor benefit of $2,260 and projected retirement benefit of $3,125 at 70, you're already looking at a significant monthly increase - don't let them pressure you into giving up part of that increase for a one-time payment. I'd definitely recommend the in-person appointment suggestion someone mentioned above. Having everything written down and being able to ask follow-up questions face-to-face seems like the best way to avoid any confusion or misunderstandings about such an important financial decision.

I went through this exact decision two years ago and I'm so glad I waited until 70! The SSA agent was very persistent about the retroactive benefits - kept emphasizing the immediate $8,500 I could get. But I did the math and realized it would have cost me about $180/month for life. Here's what helped me make the decision: I asked the agent to mail me a written comparison showing both scenarios - my monthly benefit if I took retroactive vs. waiting until 70. Seeing those numbers on paper made it crystal clear. In my case, I would have broken even at around age 74, but since I planned to live well beyond that (and thankfully am in good health), waiting was the obvious choice. The key is don't let them rush you into a decision during that phone call. Ask for everything in writing, take time to review it, and maybe even bring it to a financial advisor or trusted family member to look over. This is one of the biggest financial decisions you'll make - a few extra days or weeks to think it through is worth it for a choice that affects the rest of your life.

I wanted to add one more perspective that might be helpful - the role of medical professionals in documenting the stepparent relationship. If your husband has been attending medical appointments with your son, signing consent forms, or making medical decisions over the years, ask your son's doctors to provide letters confirming his involvement as a caregiver. Medical providers often keep detailed records of who accompanies patients to appointments and who they communicate with about care decisions. This type of documentation can be particularly powerful because it shows ongoing responsibility and involvement in your son's wellbeing, which strengthens the dependency case. I'd also suggest getting a letter from any therapists, case managers, or other service providers who have worked with your family - they can speak to your husband's role in your son's care from a professional perspective. These third-party medical and therapeutic professionals carry a lot of weight with SSA reviewers since they're neutral parties documenting the family relationships they observe.

As someone who recently went through this exact process with my stepson, I can confirm that it IS possible but requires very thorough documentation. We were initially told "no" by the first SSA representative we spoke with, but after gathering extensive proof of the dependency relationship and requesting a supervisor review, we got approved. The key was showing a clear paper trail of my husband providing over 50% of my stepson's support for multiple years - this included not just direct payments but also housing, utilities, food, medical expenses, and transportation costs. We also had to prove the "living in family relationship" aspect with things like emergency contact forms, medical authorizations, and even photos from family events over the years. One thing that really helped our case was having my stepson's case manager from the state disability services write a letter confirming my husband's active role in care coordination and decision-making. The whole process took about 6 months from application to approval, but the DAC benefits were significantly higher than his SSI, and he was able to keep his Medicaid coverage. Don't let anyone tell you it's impossible - it just requires patience and very detailed documentation!