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.

Scooby I agree with you on that point but you were referring to finances because you said they were "entitled to nothing". I am not entitled to my children's finances.

If these women were married to the fathers of their children then the situation would not occur

I don't know where you get that from. The children's rights to inherit from their fathers has nothing to do with whether or not their parents were married.

It was this quote that got me...

“It is not about the money. It doesn’t bring back our sons. But they were our sons and we brought them into this world. That’s hard enough, but *then we have these girlfriends coming along saying they are entitled to everything because they have a child.

“What about us mums?* We get no support from the MoD.

"These girlfriends"?? "A child"?? You mean your grandchild and your grandchild's Mother?

I'm absolutely appalled at these women's attitudes. Damn straight the children are entitled to it!

The Telegraph has always had a mawkish Daily Hate slant. In print, it's page 3.

I can't imagine if my son was killed that buying myself a new car would make me feel much better. These women should have researched the law on inheritance. It has nothing to do with the MOD

You'd think that if your son was dead a relationship with his child, your grandchild, would be of far more comfort than a car and a motorhome.

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.

I reckon there a more than a few. You only have to look at some of the threads on here. Money, no matter how small the sum, seems to bring out the worst in people.

I am disgusted that these mothers would rather see their grandchildren go without so that they can have a nice motor home. I can't believe that any one would actually think like that.

I am even more aghast that they would rather have the money than a relationship with their grandchild, their last link to their dead son. I am not a grandmother yet but I like to think that if I was and my child died, I would do everything possible to help support the grandchild and be part of their life. Be that financially, practically and emotionally. I would want to spend time with the other people that my child had loved and lived them.

The children to be provided for yes. But a girlfriend who might not have even be in a steady relationship handed £250K. No I can see why the mothers of these soldiers think the way they do.

YANBU. I cannot understand the mind of a woman who would buy a motorhome while leaving her grandchild in poverty.

I can only assume they hated the GFs or disapproved of the relationships, in which case I would buy things for the children directly rather than see them left without.

"I wonder if part of the problem is some of the money being labelled 'compensation'. "

This is because the whole scheme is called the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and it covers all injuries up to and including fatalities.

Children of service personnel can claim directly. As can any other person who can show they were a dependent.

It probably would have made a difference here if they were married, because then then the welfare system would have automatically swung behind widows. It would also have kicked in for known cohabiters. It's those who have not yet reached the stage of cohabitation who it doesn't cover.

If MoD paid out prematurely, when there was someone with a better claim to the compensation, then I think it should be up to the MoD to pay to the right person and then take whatever steps it feels necessary/desirable to recover the payments it made to the wrong person. Trouble is, it also gets it in the neck if it doesn't pay promptly. And it can't hold up every payment on the chance that there is a pregnant girlfriend (new or longstanding), or come to that a pregnant mistress.

The aspect of this that I find saddest is that the young fathers never met their DC, and from the reporting it's possible one of them may not even have known about the pregnancy.

I do think that the money would be handed to the girlfriend to put a roof above the dead soldier's child, feed them, clthem and ensure they grow into independent adults.

A single woman with no children doesn't have the same constriants and financial responsibilities as the one who is raising children on her own

" but then we have these girlfriends coming along saying they are entitled to everything because they have a child."

They sound awful.
It can't be easy to be bringing up a child on your own and hearing that it's all being spent on alcohol, drugs and a motorhome.

Emma Hickman, who is the girlfriend named in the article, had to fight to get a DNA test done. There is a lot of information online about her and the relationship. She was engaged to Lexi-Mae's father, he knew about the pregnancy and carried the scan pictures with him. She says he had helped her choose a name. This information is all in the public domain. So VivienneMary it certainly doesn't appear as if it was the situation you outline. I didn't know any of that when I first posted the thread, and have just googled her this morning. I did wonder if it was the 'depth' of the relationship that caused the issue but it seems not. Which makes it all the harder to understand.

I am the wife of a serving soldier. We have 2 children and another on the way. I am the named beneficiary in case of my DH's death.

The attitude of these women make me so angry. I can understand that they might not like the mothers of their grandchildren, but they don't seem to understand that their grandchildren will go without their father, they never even got to meet their father, they'll never have a picture of themselves with their daddy, they'll never have the support of their daddy. As a serving soldiers wife this is something I deal with every time he goes away... "What if he doesn't come home?" And that isn't for me, it's for our children.

The money should be used to support the children, because like a previous poster said, their dad would support them financially if they had lived so should do in their death.

Many of the soldiers have outdated wills, but that isn't necessarily the job of the mod to sort out. That is their responsibility and perhaps they thought their mothers would never behave this way.

I have lost friends, I have lost people I love and seen the realities of war and the consequences for those who don't come home. Money will never replace them, but it can provide the children and/or widows with security. If my DH dies while in the army, we have 90 days to vacate our house and hand it over. I have seen widows go through this, i have helped them clean their houses and say goodbye to the last place they saw their husband alive. The money offers them security, a new start somewhere else with their children.

The mothers of the sons don't "deserve" the money. The children do.

I think the fact that one of them thought that buying a house (for 90k) plus £5,000 cash was adequate just shows how uninformed they were about normal living costs and the cost of raising a child. He evidently did want to make provision, but although £95,000 sounds a lot to many people, in a situation such as that outlined it doesn't really touch the sides. He probably thought, "That's more than enough and if they need any more Mum can sort them out".

As for the woman who was prepared for her grandchild to get nothing, words escape me. For many soldiers from more deprived backgrounds the army provides an education, training, qualifications, a roof over their head, food, clothing, a salary, and (to an extent) guidance. So when it comes to a point where they have to make a somewhat independent decision that doesn't turn out great, there's the temptation for those left behind to immediately blame the army because it was somehow their responsibility.

It's quite clear that these women just don't give a shiny shit about their grandchildren or the mother of their grandchildren.

Selfish, greedy twats.

I think sometimes, Vivienne, people like these grandmothers (sometimes, ex-husbands!) get consumed by a feeling that the mother does not 'deserve' money (their son might not have known her long, they might feel that she 'trapped' [horrible phrase] him, maybe she was rude to them, etc) and feel that they couldn't bear to see her benefit personally from that money. A trust might seem like a way to 'do the right thing' but also keep the mother from touching the money herself.

But it's not the right thing, because whether the baby grows up in an unhappy, impoverished environment or not is directly affected by the situation of its mother for the next 18 years. Is it better for a child to grow up in its own, stable housing, in an area with decent schools, with a mother who doesn't have to constantly worry about keeping food on the table, with happy memories of family holidays with its mother etc., and then get a small inheritance but probably with much better sustainable prospects of its own, or to have none of that but get a big lump sum on their 18th birthday? It won't bring back the happy times that could have been spent in its early years.

It's just inevitable that the mother will handle the money, and yes, at times benefit from it herself, for the child to have a happy childhood. If the father had lived, he would have paid for her upbringing as it went a long, not stashed the money somewhere and paid it all out as a lump sum.

Channingswife If my DH dies while in the army, we have 90 days to vacate our house and hand it over That isn't correct love. A widowed service spouse can stay in SFA for up to 2 years, in order to settle their affairs and bring any children to a state in which they can move.

On divorce it's 90 days from when the serving spouse officially declares themselves separated - which can be up to 90 days from the start of a temporary separation so up to 180 days in total.

We've had reason to think about this in our extended family and I think it should be law that compensation can only be paid to non-dependent adults if there are known to be no dependent children.

In the cases of forces children I would think it sensible to put an automatic trust system in place where the money can only be drawn for purposes that show a clear connection to the child/children's well being - a home (of which a percentage would remain in trust for the child), or a reasonable monthly contribution towards living costs of that child, education for the named children. After all their fathers paid with their lives, compensation money should not be absorbed by grandparents, mothers who may not be able to sensibly manage such large sums or later stepfamilies or whatever.

A standard agreement could be created that meant servicemen could always opt out and make different arrangements to suit their circumstances and wishes but in the absence of a clear statement of their intent any children, born or unborn would be protected.

If mothers are really concerned about their sons being duped into babies s a pp suggested then lots of talk about contraception and the costs and responsibilities of an unplanned pregnancy whilst growing up would be advisable.

Exlt - I was told by a friend she had to be out within 90 days and I've never thought to check that myself. Perhaps she just wanted to be out ASAP, which is probably what I would do.

How do they go about taking rent for 2 years because it comes directly out of DH's wages? Or is it rent free for 2 years?

The 2 year thing is in JSPs, I think there were some issues in Germany because SOFA(BG) contradicted them, but the rules are quite clear. When we had it happen in Cyprus the widow paid the admin office direct (after the licence was passed to her) - she was also allowed to stay on (local commanders discretion) for an extra 6 months on top so her youngest could finish secondary school. It applies for all deaths in service, not just on the battlefield (the Cyprus case was a sudden heart attack).

It may be that your friend only told you when it was 90 days remaining

THE TIGER ..NO i ment a fund that can be accesed as the baby grows up .but only for things for the child .

There are a lot of things for the child that cannot be separated from the needs of the mother too - housing, holidays, toys, childcare and fun activities will also in some way benefit the parent. Parents don't usually have to justify how they spend their money on their dcs. I don't think this case should be any different.

these are legal the grounds for contesting a wil.Not sure which of these grounds would permit the courts to completely change the will.