I'm interested in the legality of assigning the $1 million insurance policy to KW and LW while Charles was still married to Lori, and whether Lori can have the assignment invalidated. Certainly she can argue she's entitled to it if she planned to continue to parent JJ. This all presumes the kids are alive. I have waffled back and forth on that a lot.
Legality can be challenged for good cause and I would expect that an open LE investigation into the homicide of the policyholder is good cause,
particularly when that named insured called the insurance company some months before he died to inform them he had been locked out of access to his own account, filed a signed and notarized affidavit to that effect so he could regain access, and reported to that insurer that if a claim was made on that policy in the near future as a consequence of homicide, the former named beneficiary (LV) and her brother, AxC should be considered suspect.
Beyond that legal consideration:
In LV's text to Kay after LV learned the beneficiary had been changed, LV pointed out that there are FIVE children to be considered. For once, LV managed to state a truth and one that may also impact her legal rights to the proceeds.
Proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of a parent should be considered funds to be provided toward the needs of any minor children who are that parent's dependents, but it may also be that they should be considered funds made available to
non-minor children who were still dependent for certain specified needs (e.g. to fund college or other education costs, medical insurance while attending college or other means of education, missions if any were doing that, or potentially even marriage costs if CV and his former wife had agreed to that).
I don't know what the settlement between CV and his first wife detailed with respect to their shared children, but I would think that would be a legal consideration as well.
ETA: So, no matter what happens with respect to LV coughing up the location of the kids or revealing what happened to them, there seems plenty of good cause to challenge any distribution of the $1 million proceeds of the policy to LV. Nothing she has done in the past two years demonstrates that she has the fitness to manage those funds fairly in relation to serving the various needs of all the children concerned. Personally, I cannot see her somehow turning that perception around to any court's satisfaction.
