Sorry, yes Xenia, you're right, she can't access the benefit, but has won the judgement saying that the law breaches human rights.
A few points to sofabitch, SD1978 and lucydogz:
This is a contributory benefit, it is paid based on the NI contributions of the deceased - my partner worked for over 40 years and had a full record of contributions. He died before reaching pensionable age. We're not looking for the 'benefits of marriage' we're looking for the benefits that partners accrued throughout their working life.
This benefit was originally created to support children. Some other countries provide a children's pension rather than a pension to the surviving partner/spouse, which makes much more sense. When it was created, society was very different and almost all couples who could benefit were married. Now almost 50% of children are born to parents who aren't married. Other legislation and benefits take this societal change into account - there are some benefits that you can't access if your spouse or 'person you live with as a spouse' is working for example. It's inconsistent.
A grieving child and family faces no fewer difficulties because their parents weren't married. The child has no power in this situation, they don't decide what their parents do.
The government/DWP were advised in the past that this should change and unmarried parents should be able to access the benefit for their children. Iain Duncan Smith refused to implement it against advice, even though the situation is incompatible with the 'Family Test', introduced by the same Tory government in 2014.
The recent cuts to the benefit (which are also wrong IMHO!) are calculated to save the government £100m a year. Implementing the benefit for all bereaved families would cost around £26m a year, so the government would still be saving money - profiting from the NI contributions of deceased parents. It's a scandal.
If both parents died, even if they were married and had paid full NI contributions, their children couldn't access this benefit.
Partners could be together for years as a family. Someone could get married days before they died and not have a full record of contributions, but their family would be able to claim.
At the end of the day, this is money for CHILDREN, which can support them and their families when they've prematurely lost a parent. Think about the long term affect of this, and the outcomes on that child as an adult. Child loses parent, surviving parent has to work more hours/move house/cut back/whatever and may not be able to spend time with and support their child, when both are going through a hugely traumatic experience.
It's heartless to say that children shouldn't be able to access a benefit that their dead parent has already contributed to.