This case note examines a recent Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Social Security Act concerning entitlement to survivor’s benefits in respect of children. The case involved the correct construction of the term ‘child’ in the Act but arose, more specifically, from a series of cases concerning posthumously conceived children. Courts of Appeal had come to different interpretations as to correct interpretation of the Act and the Supreme Court intervened to resolve the conflict. The Court accepted the Social Security Agency’s (SSA) interpretation of the legislation. However, although legally correct, this does little if anything to ensure any coherence in the application of the law to posthumously conceived children or to resolve the issue of when such children should be entitled to benefit. Part I sets out the background to the issue and the relevant law. Part II sets out the facts of the case involved. Part III looks at how the Supreme Court interpreted the law in this case, while Part IV concludes with a discussion of the need for legislative reform.