to think that dependant children have rights over and above those of bereaved adults

[Northernlurker]

I have been reading this article and whilst I agree that the MOD doesn't appear to give guidance re the rights of dependants and they should, I am taken aback by the stubborn attitude of both mothers in the case towards their grandchildrens' rights. Surely any reasonable person would agree that a baby, left without a father to help support them at all, has a far greater entitlement to benefit from an estate and a child's mother has a far greater need to house herself and her child than the mother of a grown up child needs to benefit from the estate?
I think blaming the MOD is a bit of a red herring really.

I'm sorry but all soldiers (even the young green ones) know that if you are not married your girlfriend and any children get nothing if not named in will

That's not correct. I don't know the English position but under Scots Law if these soldiers were domiciled in Scotland and had made no will if they were unmarried their children would automatically get everything.

If they were married or in a civil partnership then the surviving spouse gets part under what is called prior and legal rights and the children get the residue.

A quick Google suggests you are wrong under English law also.

In England and Wales, when someone dies intestate with no surviving spouse or civil partner, but with surviving children or other descendants, the whole estate passes to the children in equal shares.

Posthumous children are treated the same as children living at the time of death.

The children of these soldiers would have been protected if there had there been no will.

Those mothers very greedy pure and simple. They did not need money in the same way that grandchildren need money. Quite rightly the money is not put in trust for the children because the children need to eat and have a roof over their heads.

Compensation for losing a loved one is not designed to be like winning the lottery it's designed to help with every day expenses. A mother does not expect her to financially support her. A child has a reasonable expectation that a parent should feed and clothe them.

No amount of compensation can stop a mother from hurting.

RealyTired you are spot on about compensation - morally, ethically and legally.

Posthumous children are treated the same as children living at the time of death.

It is complicated by the fact that the parents were unmarried.

On the face of it, it looks as though one relationship in the article was more established than the other, as well. Those kinds of issues will have an effect.

Sorry for derailing the thread... but what the FUCK is that horrendous thing the baby is wearing on the first photo in the article???

It's been a while since a baby headband debate aurynne. It is a particularly bold example

It is complicated by the fact that the parents were unmarried

No it isn't. Other than the very limited exception of inheriting a nobility title it makes no difference.

The child doesn't have the automatic benefit of the doctrine of pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant which marriage confers but proving paternity if necessary isn't particularly difficult.

In theory or in practice?

Comprehensive wills, regularly updated (and good advice from the MOD to facilitate that) would be better in any case, wouldn't they?

I agree with ALass, entirely. I don't know the legal position at all, but if it's true that when a soldier dies intestate, that his insurance pay out etc. goes to his estate, which will then go to his child(ren), then surely they're better off NOT making a Will than relying on their mothers to do the decent thing? Although I don't know either how much longer things take when there is no Will as opposed to going through probate.

I do think these older women are in the wrong though. Babies/ children should always come first in the "needing the money" stakes - if the lads had lived, they would have been paying to look after their children, (probably their GFs too if they were still together), NOT their mothers in most cases. Same when they've died.

Comprehensive wills, regularly updated (and good advice from the MOD to facilitate that) would be better in any case, wouldn't they?

Not neceassarily for reasons already stated. If the soldiers were happy their children and/or wives inherit everything then apart from naming the executors and as a record of any other wishes there would be little practical difference.

In the absence of a will the children will do better than the wife and in the case of unmarried couples the children will inherit to the exclusion of their mother.

Although I don't know either how much longer things take when there is no Will as opposed to going through probate

Executors in a testate case are authorised by the court. There will be a bit more complication where there is no will as the court will have to appoint executors.

In the case of wives and children born in wives, yes no problem.

But getting paternity recognised - and a father named on the birth certificate, even - for a posthumous baby born to a non-widow could be very complicated under English Law, depending on the exact circumstances. So I suppose it depends on the circumstances.

In wives That should be 'in marriage'.

I'm afraid while I'm sorry for their loss, I think they are being greedy and selfish.

The children need the money more than the mothers do or should.

As to the responsibilities of the mod I'm from a forces background plus via my sbexh I know that they are repeatedly told to have their affairs in order before travelling to theatre, they are given the opportunity to get wills drawn up by solicitors, get advice on life assurance and other death benefits but a lot of them don't.

Honestly short of dragging them by the scruff of the neck to do so there's nothing more could be done. All the soldiers I know even ex are well organised in this respect.

"That’s hard enough, but then we have these girlfriends coming along saying they are entitled to everything because they have a child."

Note how they didn't say grandchild. I think this sums up their attitude pretty well. They could have been agreeable in court and the one mother could have kept the good relationship she had with her son's gf.

MoD should make sure all soldiers deploying have their insurance claims updated and as they want them. However, these mothers took advantage of their son's clear oversight and did everything they could to prevent their grandchildren from getting the financial help they deserved.

People are assuming that the wills were made when the girlfriends were pregnant, but I suspect that the reality may be that they were wills made when they first deployed when they possibly didn't even have girlfriends. Therefore the real question is whether they were told to check and update their wills before they were deployed on subsequent occasions. Baconyum says they are told that, so if the army can prove that is the case I suspect the families won't have a leg to stand on.

Russian, in this article the first gf mentioned had to go through courts to prove her DD was the child of her deceased boyfriend, via DNA testing. I don't suppose it's much more complex than that, is it?

Good grief, what a horrible article. The babies are absolutely entitled to that money. It's a very mawkish article - has the Telegraph gone downhill?

What an awful situation. I am shocked that the mums would see their grandchildren go unprovided for though.

Prior to any deployment a soldier (sailor/airman) goes through an MCCP with their admin, finance, med and training staff. It covers everything they need to know, including wills, and even a 'stock' photo being taken for use by the papers should the worst happen. They are also given a copy of the attached www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/20110308_PDF_Families_Deployment_guide_March2011.pdf which clearly states what they should do if they have a partner or child and are unmarried.

As sad as this story is, the fault lies with the soldier and the soldiers parent, not the mod.

I qm.shocked to my core by the selfishness of the mothers. DH died last June leaving me pregnant with a three year old. He only managed to update his death in service insurance two days before he died to ensure all rather than half the money went to me. But even if he had not done it I know his parents would have handed over 'their' half to me but they love their grandchildren.

They lost a child and have managed not to behave like these repugnant women.

YANBU.

Sad story for everyone involved.

But did the mothers of the babies actually have any relationship with the DGMs. It sounds as if not as, even before the money appeared, surely the DGMs would be involved with their DGC and DsIL.

The DM and baby will be entitled to some state benefits. The DGM nothing after spending 20 years bringing up their son who might have been expected to support them into old age. Lost 'fighting for his country'.

Chances are that the DM and baby will go onto another relationship with a new DF.

Just giving another viewpoint. Not saying the dGM's behavior is correct.

Derailing a bit here but I didn't realise that a will obviously means nothing if it can be overturned by the courts. I'm a bit shocked about that.

In the story we don't know if the soldiers in question were helping their mothers financially and still 'living at home' - there is no mention of the soldiers' fathers unless I missed it.

So share the money with the DC but don't disregard the deceased's wish to support his mum.

if it were me i would give the money to my grandchild but would set up a trust so it only accesed for them .the mother will most likely have another relationship and i would not want anyone but my sons child to benefit .