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 know a woman who was named as a sole beneficiary in thensurance of her long term boyfriend, who died a month after he left her for another woman, who was pregnant with his baby.

The woman jetted off to Australia, refused to return the money to the child as the courts instructed and by the time everything was sorted, she had spent most of it but proudky announced that she managed to put the money in a trust for the baby to get it at 21.

I could have spat in her face (and so could the boyfriend's parents), but it surprised me how many of her friends were celebrating because the wretched "ow" wouldn't get any of it.

I agree that this being the fault of the MOD is a red herring, but I think that there should be a mechanism to avoid dependant's mothers to have to spend so much time and money in court to get the money they are entitled to from the beneficiaries listed in an out of date will.

(personally, I think that who goes and spends the money they know should be transfered to a dependant, should return it or be be sent to jail.

It's all really sad but it should definitely be the children of these soldiers who are put first....whether the mothers like the wives/girlfriends or not.

Nobody can understand the devastation of losing a child unless they've been through it and I think grief is playing a big part in the mothers' behaviour....but to actively try to deprive their own sons' children of financial support is unforgivable.

What are they thinking??

Sorry Aprilene, bad timing for my post, but what is the use of having a bloody trust to hand at 21, which effectively forces the child to grow up in poverty?

The damage is done already.

Scooby, so the state should have to pay out twice?

I certainly don't expect my son to provide for me in old age

If the circumstances were different and the man hadn't been killed but the relationship had ended, I think we'd all agree he'd have to pay maintenance. It's so wrong that we have this attitude that it doesn't really matter if the man pays or not as the ever benevolent welfare state will just keep giving. It does matter; it matters a lot.

Twowrongs I'm not a lawywer and there seem to be some good lawyers on this thread but in terms of overturning wills, I think this reflects the fact that if the deceased person had lived, they would have had continuing obligtations and responsibilities towards dependents and that it is legitimate for the deceased's estate to meet these obligations to the extent possible before making any additional discretionay payments.

Thinking about it, afterall, we all have tax obligations and the first issue to be sorted out for any person is to identify if there are outstanding taxes due and to settle them before any other payment at all can be made. A father will have legal obligations to a child if he lives, but not to his mother. (unless there is some kind of additional legal contract, if there had been a loan bettween them or something) So I don't see the over-turning of a will as any kind of capricious challenge that anyone could make - and I don't see it as in any way ilegitimate - in fact I think it's important that the obligations a person would have had in life are assessed and accounted for in death.

ExLtEveDallas' post on the previous page is tremendously sad. Especially the stock photo for the papers.

I am not surprised many of the soldiers don't put everything in order- they don't want to believe it will be them who dies. They can't actually comprehend that reality (even though they know it's a possibility).

*I am assuming this, based on human psychology, not on a knowledge of the army.

Plenty of middle-aged people lose young adult children, but manage not to behave like this. I can understand the insistence on a DNA test given the circumstances I suppose, but on the whole it seems rather crass to retain the money.

The MOD arguably should offer better advice to staff, particularly young unmarried ones. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to put some kind of legal pack together, outlining the facts?

Scarletts - look at the link in ltEve's post.

The pack and the actual briefing where someone stands up and tells them how important it all is already happen.

Why are people assuming the mothers would get state benefits?

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

The law requires children to be maintained by their parents and gives children in intestate succession priority over everyone else. The law does not make judgemental assessments about those children.

Do parents expect to be kept by their adult children?

I'm not a grandmother and don't particularly want to be one. I know if however my son died leaving a grandchild I would want to do everything possible to make sure I had a relationship with that child.

It is odd. I know my parents would give everything they have to our childrrn if they needed it. If anything happened to us there would be no question about the money being for them. Most grandparents I know are the same.

"The DGM nothing after spending 20 years bringing up their son who might have been expected to support them into old age."

I do not expect my children to support me into old age. I hope they will want to always be involved in my life but support? No bloody way. That sort of attitude causes untold heartache.

Support doesn't necessarily mean money imv could be repairing a dripping tap! driving to hosp appts or just turning up on your bday.

PlayingSolitare, it's not always a 'sad' occasion. Lots of lads write 'final letters' too, that are only to be opened in the event of their deaths - they are sometimes poignant, sometimes funny. They also pack up their rooms - especially the items that they WOULDNT want their mums to see (thing dirty magazines etc)

Admin staff do their best to make sure that the lads are well informed and do the most they can for the people they might leave behind (as well as having to do their own). Of course some won't listen, don't want to think about it, but in my experience most are very open to instruction and take all the help and experience they can.

I am the mother of 2 sons in their late twenties.

(1) I do not expect to be supported by them in my old age - that's not why you have children.

(2) I would expect anything they left to be used to support their children (born or unborn)

(3) If either of them died I would be far too devastated to go out buying a new car, new house, motor home etc as one of the mothers in this article did. In fact I found that the most distasteful part of all.

The Inheritance legislation allows a dependant to make a claim on a will if they are left out. This is what is used here. Their employers should be telling these young lads that they need to ensure they leave something to their dependants otherwise the will is void. However these men may have known the babies weren't theirs and left them out of the will and if I were the mothers I'd get a DNA pretty quickly

If these women were married to the fathers of their children then the situation would not occur. People know the law re inheritance and must take steps to protect themselves. But most people would provide for their grandchildren I would have thought even if they inherited all the money themselves. But then people are relying on good will (or decency) and not everybody sees things the same way.

Thanks for linking that LtEve - really brings home the reality of deployment. It reads like it's been written by some very sensible, experienced people too.

Scoobydoo - I disagree. The girlfriends may well go on to form new relationships. I hope they do. It would be a sad situation for them to never have another partner for the rest of their lives. However it isn't their job to find a partner to support another man's child. State benefits are being cut back day by day. why should the child of a man who died 'fighting for his country' be left in poverty whilst their grandmother buys a motorhome for example.

Grazia - one of the girlfriends did get a dna analysis done to prove this and the other was in a more established relationship it appears and did name the girlfriend and the baby in the will, just not to an adequate extent.

I suppose the only way they could have known the babies weren't theirs is if they had not slept with their mothers. Fortunately proving parenthood in this time and age of DNA testing is incredibly easy and nearly impossible to avoid, and whether they wanted that money to go to their children or not is irrelevant, if there are dependents they need to be accomodated for.

Grazia they did get a DNA test

Grazia they did get a DNA test

Vivienmary, when it comes to dependants, being married or not is irrelevant. The mother might not be protected at all, but the children are regardless of their parents' civil status.

I would be extremely skeptical of an article like this that paints some people (the classic mother-in-laws here) as wicked witches and the daughters as entirely blameless victims. Real life has all kinds of shades of grey in it, and if it sounds incredible, like this does to me, then there's a chance that some very cogent facts are being quietly sidelined to give the whole story much more grotesque than it really is. First law of the media industry: Bad news sells. Worse news sells more.

This isn't to say that I believe that there are no money-grabbing scumbags out there who would run over their own grandchild/grandmother in their rush to inherit a handful of brass tacks. Just that in real life, people are largely either nice human beings, or sensible enough to realise how bad they're going to look if something like this story gets out in their village/town/rag. Very few would choose to take the scumbag route and talk to the press about it.

God those grandmothers both sound like a piece of work.