|
Edited on Fri Feb-16-07 09:00 AM by Divernan
as soon as they have a child, let alone go to war. In fact, all parents should, but very few do.
In this case, the single mother had not had her parents legally named as guardians. The father is referred to as "estranged" and evidently never attempted to claim any of the death benefit or insurance. Lucky for them, cause that would have really tied up everything for years. There are a lot of cases where the dead soldier left insurance/death benefits to their current spouse, and made no provisions for children from prior "relationships" or marriages.
I get really angry when people are so irresponsible about their duties to their kids. I'm talking about people who live together, have children, continue living together as a "family", but never get married. If they have such a terror of a legal commitment to their partner, the least they can do is make protective provisions for their children. It's not just soldiers. Any adult could be killed in an accident or die rather quickly from an aggressive disease.
The article stated: The problem could have been avoided altogether if Jaime had directed part of her life insurance money, rather than the death gratuity, to her parents. It further stated that the woman left no will. Given the poor education and low level of maturity of the many very young recruits, the military should provide some legal counseling to all of them about such matters. But then these young people really don't believe they will be killed - or they wouldn't have signed up in the first place. Once a parent is killed, and the extended family finds out about that half a million (or whatever)insurance policy, plus the survivor benefits - you see a lot of relatives stepping forward to try to get control. I've tried cautioning a few people I know who have kids in the military, especially if there are grandchildren involved, to take the necessary legal precautions, but it seems to be too grim a possibility for them to face. Consider the possibilities when some very poor, very young woman is widowed with kids, and gets her $500,000 life insurance payment, plus survivor's benefits. Statistics show that when young people come into this kind of money - whether through inheritance or a court award for an injury, the money is gone within a few years. She also becomes a target for some gold-digging new husband. If a soldier leaves kids behind, that insurance benefit should go into trust for the kids - the guardian could get approval to buy a house or car - but it's in the child's name. Money can be allocated for health care, education, maintenance - even soccer camp. But no gold digging relatives or new spouse can squander it. If you set up a guardianship in advance, rather than forcing the court to appoint one, you would not face the situation these grandparents face, with having to pay legal fees and constantly petition the court to get $200 a month.
Another thing - the grandparents are already getting $1700 a month in benefits for their grand daughter, but complain that their daughter was sending them $3100 a month from Iraq. Clearly, their grand daughter's upkeep wasn't costing them $3100 a month, and the grandparents were living off their daughter's income, not their own. I can understand the court's reluctance to provide additional moneys. If I were the judge, I wouldn't throw money away subsidizing the grandparents' money-losing stable business, no matter how much they insisted on continuing it as a tribute to the memory of their dead daughter. Look at how much college educations cost these days. That's where the money should go - not to a losing business proposition. What a mess the whole situation is.
The bottom line is that if a parent does not make the necessary arrangements before dying and leaving a minor child behind, (and particularly if there is more than one party claiming rights to guardianship), the courts appoint guardians and the standards for your kids' welfare and care are determined by someone whom you've never met and has no idea how you wanted your children raised. And money that should have gone to the child's welfare goes to legal fees. What would happen to YOUR child should you (&your spouse) get killed in a traffic accident on the way home from work today?
|