Hi. I am 64 with multiple sclerosis and recieiving SSDI mof $1,041 this current year. I just watched a TV court show involving a 21 year old woman who had been (her mother as guardian) receiving SSDI since the girll was age 5. The monthly sum was $1700. What? How does this happen when I worked over 30 years and get no more than the $1041? I don't believe there is anything I can do about my monthly amount but it sure gives me leaven for complaint.

Hi,

In order to be eligible for Social Security disability benefits (SSDI) you must be insured, which involves working and paying Social Security taxes for a sufficient period of time (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/insured.html). The length of time required varies depending on the age at which the person becomes disabled.

Suffice to say, it would be almost impossible for a 5 year old to be insured for SSDI. I suppose that it's theoretically possible in the case of a very young child actor, for example, but it's extremely rare for a person to be insured for SSDI prior to age 18 or so, let alone age 5.

Therefore, the type of benefit that the child received in the TV show you watched was almost certainly not SSDI. Many disabled children receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is a needs based benefit for people with little or no means of self support. The maximum monthly SSI payment is only $750, though.

So, if it was Social Security that the child on TV was receiving, it was most likely a surviving child's benefit. Children under age 18 don't need to be disabled to be eligible for Social Security child's benefits, but they do have to be disabled in order to continue to receive benefits after age 19. Children can potentially receive child's benefits based on the earnings history of a parent who is either deceased or receiving benefits themselves, but the parent would have to be deceased in order for the child to be eligible for a benefit rate as high as $1700 a month (https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf). And even that would be rare, because the deceased parent would need to have had very high earnings for a significant number of years in order for a surviving child to be due that high of a benefit rate from their record.

Best, Jerry