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.

Everyone on this thread seems to agree that dependant children are the most important. How come there is a war widow's pension but no benefit for bereaved children?
And in civil benefits why is there a widow's allowance but nothing for the children?

Not sure what your point is. You are comparing apples with oranges.

There is no such thing as a widow's pension. In civil cases , in certain circumstances the surviving spouse gets a small amount of bereavement allowance and/or bereavement payment.

There are other allowances for children.

The services payments are to surviving spouses , not widows.

"The services payments are to surviving spouses , not widows."

Sorry to pick at this, TheLass, but surely a surviving spouse IS a widow (or in some cases, widower) so I don't see your distinction?

The former widows allowance was only paid to widows meaning bereaved wives. The current bereavement allowance is paid to bereaved spouses widows (female) and widowers (male) and was introduced in the UK in 2001.

The army payment is War Widow(er) Pension. I haven't specifically checked but I'd guess it applying to both sexes is relatively recent too.

So a pretty large distinction.

I'm a lawyer. DOn't muddle a right to challenge the validity of a will (such as your signature was forged etc) with the rights of dependants to bring a court claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and dependants) Act. The latter is NOT really a challenge to a will at all. It i just a right to claim something from the estate. Eg someone might leave £100m to their new wife and cut out minor children entirely. Those children could claim a reasonable amount from the estate under the Act but it wouldn't be by way of saying the will was invalid. The new wife would still get just about everything.

The position in Scotland is different.

Any excluded child of any age can claim legal rights. Legal rights are paid out of moveable property (cash ,shares, antiques, cars, boats, jewellery etc) but not land or houses. The legal rights share of the children is to one third of the moveable estate divided amongst all the children.

Alass what do you mean by "bereaved spouses widows"?

Widow = a bereaved wife
Widower=a bereaved husband
Bereaved spouses = either.

The "Widows' Allowance " was only paid to widows =wives until this was changed in 2001 to be paid to bereaved men as well .

The allowance is now called "Bereavement Allowance " not Widows Allowance "

So I understand all that but there is some repetition and I was trying to work put which bit was emphasised. Bereaved is implied in widow ,presumably.

Oh for goodness sake the poster who started on about "Widows Allowance " is talking about a historic allowance which no longer exists.

The current bereavement allowance is paid to bereaved spouses in other words to widows (female) and widowers (male)

Ok thanks

I only ask as a friend of mine recieves it, but her 17 year old who is in care recieves nothing. I realise it's not the same as a will but given the strength of feeling that dependants should benefit it seems odd that this is the case

But a girlfriend is not a widow. If somebody had a one night stand and then had a child then of course the child has to be provided for. But I don't see why that person should be given the whole of the compensation or even any of it. If it was a casual relationship.

Well fortunately the law on inheritance doesn't agree with you. The estate goes to the child without applying standards of "just a one night stand by blow , doesn't really count"

The issue about Bereavement Allowance is a complete red herring.

And it's now very clear that neither of these relationships were at all 'casual'.

Not that it would matter (and I know OP that's not what you meant but clearly others think it does)

It is hard to see how the MoD could know that a soldiers girlfriend was pregnant at the time they made the wills.

A good lawyer should always make sure people take these kind of things into account. Making a will isn't about the current situation, but also about what might be the case in the future - so that wills don;t need updating every other year!

A good lawyer should always make sure people take these kind of things into account.

Executors have a duty to consider the possibility of statutory claimants existing.

Exlt has explained it much better than I did so basically posters now know that the mod do everything possible. Even considering the possibility of poor journalism (and the telegraph isn't the best) the direct quotes and the facts of what the money was spent on say it all for me.

In addition my personal experience is that an awful lot of people that join up do so to escape something (poverty, unemployment yes but also toxic families, including addicts, rough areas, in my father's case a gang situation). Wrt the mum who went down the drink/drugs route I'm sceptical that's the first time she's been there.

It would take a lot to convince me these soldiers mothers are anything but greedy selfish people who couldn't give a shit about their grandchildren.

Wow, just horrible. Those poor young women and babies.

Parenthood isn't a casual relationship. If these were childless girlfriends of brief duration claiming they'd get nowhere - the money is for the children of the dead, who should (I would have thought obviously, as, it seems, do the courts) have first and primary claim for support. So even if it were a one-night-stand (which, as has been said, is not the case) the children would need the money. There's no possibility of CSA, is there!